• 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]

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

If the question is are semi/fully automatic rifles more dangerous then semi-automatic handguns?

Then I say clearly they are.

Assuming they are firing similar sized ammunition with similar muzzle velocities then obviously a weapon that can fire several times more bullets per minute then another weapon will be (usually) more dangerous to those it is aimed at.


As for adding in that the latter is less likely to be used then the latter and thus makes it more formidable to me is somewhat irrelevant.

It has been shown time and again that with enough planning, sneaking a semi-automatic rifle into almost any situation is possible.


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?

The 31 killings a few years ago at Virginia Tech when the shooter was armed only with two semi-automatic handguns suggests they probably would not be.


The solution to what happened in Newtown is simple - arm the teachers/principals. Make it mandatory that a certain percentage of the staff must carry concealed handguns to receive federal/state funding. They armed the cockpits of airliners - why not schools?
There is almost no chance that some psycho would go on a killing spree in a school if he knows that several of the teachers will be 'packing'.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

I'm not sure what your point is.

Are you saying that there are other weapons which are suitable for killing lots of people? If so, you're right, but that's irrelevant to the question of whether a pistol grip can make a rifle more dangerous.

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

Fair enough (regarding mag releases)

Stabilize = keep steady and on target.

Many professionals disagree about the accuracy. Anything that makes you more comfortable, and gives you a better grip, is going to contribute to accuracy. And whether a snipers rifle has them or not says nothing about whether or not they help with accuracy on a weapon that is not a snipers' rifle.

And pistol grips most certainly can make it easier to file a rifle one handed.

A pistol grip doesnt really do much to stabilize a weapon. What really helps stabilize a weapon is the spring behind the bolt that keeps the recoil down. Or in some weapons the bolt is designed to move downward in order to keep the recoil down. Both of those two things are way more important to the stability of a weapon then a pistol grip which does very little and some would argue that it doesnt do help at all.

The reason I mentioned snipers rifles is because they manage to be extremely accurate without a pistol grip which shows that a pistol grip is not necessary to make an accurate gun. And the AK47 is a much more inaccurate gun then a M14 and the AK has a pistol grip while the M14 doesnt. And what about the part of my post where I said that accuracy doesnt really matter in a mass shooting because they occur at very close ranges where even an inaccurate can be very effective?

Can you prove that a pistol grip makes a weapon easier to fire one handed or is that just your opinion? It is just as easy to grip a weapon without a pistol grip as it is to grip a weapon with one.
 
Fair enough (regarding mag releases)

Stabilize = keep steady and on target.

Many professionals disagree about the accuracy. Anything that makes you more comfortable, and gives you a better grip, is going to contribute to accuracy. And whether a snipers rifle has them or not says nothing about whether or not they help with accuracy on a weapon that is not a snipers' rifle.

And pistol grips most certainly can make it easier to file a rifle one handed.

You have no concept of long arms then.

The only factor in terms of grip that matters for accuracy is if you can keep it tight and get cheek weld. Staying on target is about consistency and doing the same thing every time.

But a pistol grip is not for shooting 1 handed. That is stupid. It is about ergonomics and comfort. Shooting 1 handed with a rifle has no realistic value....unless you are Rambo. It works great of you are Rambo.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

If the question is are semi/fully automatic rifles more dangerous then semi-automatic handguns?

Then I say clearly they are.

Assuming they are firing similar sized ammunition with similar muzzle velocities then obviously a weapon that can fire several times more bullets per minute then another weapon will be (usually) more dangerous to those it is aimed at.



As for adding in that the latter is less likely to be used then the latter and thus makes it more formidable to me is somewhat irrelevant.

It has been shown time and again that with enough planning, sneaking a semi-automatic rifle into almost any situation is possible.


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?

The 31 killings a few years ago at Virginia Tech when the shooter was armed only with two semi-automatic handguns suggests they probably would not be.


The solution to what happened in Newtown is simple - arm the teachers/principals. Make it mandatory that a certain percentage of the staff must carry concealed handguns to receive federal/state funding. They armed the cockpits of airliners - why not schools?
There is almost no chance that some psycho would go on a killing spree in a school if he knows that several of the teachers will be 'packing'.

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

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. ;)

Fair enough.

And I agree that in most situations, and by most measures, a pistol is more dangerous. I said something to that effect, though maybe not as clearly as this, very early on in the thread.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

assault weapon meaning of class of rifle.


A rifle that is an assault weapon is semiautomatic rifle that is either a rifle bearing the name of a banned rifle name on the(meaning you can have an AK47 as long as it was not called a AK47) brady assault weapons ban or according to that same ban a rifle that has two or more of the following cosmetic features-

Brady.jpg

Other than making hoplophobes piss and **** their panties I do not think those things make the rifle a different class.
 
Last edited:
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

A pistol grip doesnt really do much to stabilize a weapon. What really helps stabilize a weapon is the spring behind the bolt that keeps the recoil down. Or in some weapons the bolt is designed to move downward in order to keep the recoil down. Both of those two things are way more important to the stability of a weapon then a pistol grip which does very little and some would argue that it doesnt do help at all.

The reason I mentioned snipers rifles is because they manage to be extremely accurate without a pistol grip which shows that a pistol grip is not necessary to make an accurate gun. And the AK47 is a much more inaccurate gun then a M14 and the AK has a pistol grip while the M14 doesnt. And what about the part of my post where I said that accuracy doesnt really matter in a mass shooting because they occur at very close ranges where even an inaccurate can be very effective?

Can you prove that a pistol grip makes a weapon easier to fire one handed or is that just your opinion? It is just as easy to grip a weapon without a pistol grip as it is to grip a weapon with one.

The fact that the spring or bolt does more to stabilize a weapon does not mean that other features can not and do not also help stabilize the weapon.

The fact that a pistol grip is not needed to make a weapon accurate does not mean that a pistol grip can not and does not improve accuracy

And as far as mass shootings goes, not every shot is done at very close ranges, and even when it is, having the pistol grip helps in a situation (one handed shooting) accuracy is compromised.

As far as pistol grips providing a better grip on the weapon, that is their primary function. Its obvious that providing a better grip makes it easier to grip the weapon in both one handed and two handed positions.
 
You have no concept of long arms then.

The only factor in terms of grip that matters for accuracy is if you can keep it tight and get cheek weld. Staying on target is about consistency and doing the same thing every time.

But a pistol grip is not for shooting 1 handed. That is stupid. It is about ergonomics and comfort. Shooting 1 handed with a rifle has no realistic value....unless you are Rambo. It works great of you are Rambo.

And pistol grips improve ones ability to "keep it tight". That's their primary function.

And I never said that the pistol "is for shooting one handed". I said it makes one-handed shooting easier.

And i'vr already posted a link which shows that one handed shooting can be of value in some situations.
 
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.

True, which is why fully auto is not as widely found in military issued firearms as it used to be
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

True, which is why fully auto is not as widely found in military issued firearms as it used to be

You really need to quit while you're only behind your own ass...
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

You really need to quit while you're only behind your own ass...

I'd prefer to hear your explanation of how burst mode is a form of fully automatic fire. :lamo
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

I'd prefer to hear your explanation of how burst mode is a form of fully automatic fire. :lamo

When did I post that?
 
And pistol grips improve ones ability to "keep it tight". That's their primary function.

And I never said that the pistol "is for shooting one handed". I said it makes one-handed shooting easier.

And i'vr already posted a link which shows that one handed shooting can be of value in some situations.

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

The fact that the spring or bolt does more to stabilize a weapon does not mean that other features can not and do not also help stabilize the weapon.

The fact that a pistol grip is not needed to make a weapon accurate does not mean that a pistol grip can not and does not improve accuracy

And as far as mass shootings goes, not every shot is done at very close ranges, and even when it is, having the pistol grip helps in a situation (one handed shooting) accuracy is compromised.

As far as pistol grips providing a better grip on the weapon, that is their primary function. Its obvious that providing a better grip makes it easier to grip the weapon in both one handed and two handed positions.

Right I never said that other features cannot be used to stabilize a weapon. My main point with that is that if a gun manufacturer wanted to make a weapon that is more stable without a pistol grip they can find a way by being creative. However I dont think that a pistol grip improves the stability of a weapon in a noticeable way.

A pistol grip does not make a weapon more accurate. Lets take the SKS and the AK 47 for example. They are basically the same weapon except the SKS doesnt have a pistol grip while the AK 47 does. The SKS has a max effective range of 400-430 yards while the max effective range for an AK 47 is about 400-430 yards.

Yes every shot is not done at extremely close ranges in a mass shooting. I would say at the most a mass shooter may need to shoot about 100 yards (although unlikely). The SKS that I talked about earlier easily can shoot that distance accurately.

A pistol grips primary function is comfort. There is no reason why a rifle with a pistol grip would be easier to grip then a rifle without a pistol grip.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

True, which is why fully auto is not as widely found in military issued firearms as it used to be

Exactly. Now the military mainly uses full auto for suppression.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

Right I never said that other features cannot be used to stabilize a weapon. My main point with that is that if a gun manufacturer wanted to make a weapon that is more stable without a pistol grip they can find a way by being creative. However I dont think that a pistol grip improves the stability of a weapon in a noticeable way.

A pistol grip does not make a weapon more accurate. Lets take the SKS and the AK 47 for example. They are basically the same weapon except the SKS doesnt have a pistol grip while the AK 47 does. The SKS has a max effective range of 400-430 yards while the max effective range for an AK 47 is about 400-430 yards.

Yes every shot is not done at extremely close ranges in a mass shooting. I would say at the most a mass shooter may need to shoot about 100 yards (although unlikely). The SKS that I talked about earlier easily can shoot that distance accurately.

A pistol grips primary function is comfort. There is no reason why a rifle with a pistol grip would be easier to grip then a rifle without a pistol grip.

I think that reasonable people can disagree as to the extent that pistol grips provide a better grip, and therefore help stabilize the weapon. Howver, it's not reasonable to say it provides no better grip.

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

Providing a better grip, stabilizing the weapon, and yes, even comfort, can all contribute to the accuracy of the shooter. Therefore, the pistol grip does make a rifle more dangerous

Reasonable people can disagree over just how much more danger a pistol grip contributes, but an honest and reasonable person, once presented with the facts, cannot deny that the pistol grip adds to the dangerousness of a rifle.

re: AK SKS comparison - max eff range is not the only measure of effectiveness
 
there actually is. it really all depends on the person. since people commit crimes not guns, it doesn't matter.

1: People would be included in the "situation" section of my post.

2: The OP was not so much about crimes as it was about which type of gun would do the most damage. At least that is how I took it. :shrug: I may be wrong. But either way my post would stand.
 
There is no straight answer to your question for the simple fact that it all depends on the situation and environment.

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. ;)
 
1: People would be included in the "situation" section of my post.

2: The OP was not so much about crimes as it was about which type of gun would do the most damage. At least that is how I took it. :shrug: I may be wrong. But either way my post would stand.

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

I think that reasonable people can disagree as to the extent that pistol grips provide a better grip, and therefore help stabilize the weapon. Howver, it's not reasonable to say it provides no better grip.

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

Providing a better grip, stabilizing the weapon, and yes, even comfort, can all contribute to the accuracy of the shooter. Therefore, the pistol grip does make a rifle more dangerous

Reasonable people can disagree over just how much more danger a pistol grip contributes, but an honest and reasonable person, once presented with the facts, cannot deny that the pistol grip adds to the dangerousness of a rifle.

re: AK SKS comparison - max eff range is not the only measure of effectiveness

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

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.

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.

And yes max effective range isnt the only measure of effectiveness but when you are talking about engaging a target at a specific range (which we were) it is the best measure of effectiveness.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom