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

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

sangha said:

Split second?

Sounds like the shooter has the gun at the ready, even though you said he wouldnt

Click to expand...

It only takes a split second longer to raise a weapon.

Edit: Plus if a shooter were to keep their weapon at the ready the entire time they would be pretty damned fatigued.

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

Surtr said:

The concept is to push the firearm straight back into the shoulder pocket to reduce muzzle climb. I personally haven't noticed a significant difference in muzzle climb between either configuration. After firing an AR-15, followed by a Ruger Mini-14, the only change in target acquisition was due to the different sights. In a 12 gauge shotgun it wouldn't be desirable at all, since it would put more pressure and force into the shoulder.

Click to expand...

That makes sense, but I want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly

Are you saying that it (does or is supposed to) prevent the stock from moving out of its' optimal position in the shoulder pocket?

And is this desireable?

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

Omgitsme said:

It only takes a split second longer to raise a weapon.

Edit: Plus if a shooter were to keep their weapon at the ready the entire time they would be pretty damned fatigued.

Click to expand...

Is raising the weapon all they have to do?

I think not. At least, not always

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

sangha said:

Is raising the weapon all they have to do?

I think not. At least, not always

Click to expand...

You raise the weapon and acquire the target. Doesnt take long.

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

Omgitsme said:

You raise the weapon and acquire the target. Doesnt take long.

Click to expand...

It's not as simple as you make it sound.

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

sangha said:

That makes sense, but I want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly

Are you saying that it (does or is supposed to) prevent the stock from moving out of its' optimal position in the shoulder pocket?

And is this desireable?

Click to expand...

It's supposed to reduce muzzle climb (the force of the round and expended gasses forcing the barrel upwards). If it made any significant difference it would be, but I haven't noticed any. It's more or less what the shooter personally finds to be more comfortable to fire.

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

sangha said:

It's not as simple as you make it sound.

Click to expand...

Fine. What else do you think you have to do?

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

Surtr said:

It's supposed to reduce muzzle climb (the force of the round and expended gasses forcing the barrel upwards). If it made any significant difference it would be, but I haven't noticed any. It's more or less what the shooter personally finds to be more comfortable to fire.

Click to expand...

That makes sense. Thanks

So some people would find that it helps them keep their weapon on target, as opposed to slightly above target. As you said, not such a huge difference that everyone will appreciate, but some seem to.

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

sangha said:

It's not as simple as you make it sound.

Click to expand...

It's actually very simple. In the Army we're trained in reflexive fire exercises to lower the weapon after we fire to prevent unwanted casualties. It's to build muscle memory, reduce unwanted casualties, and maintain a higher field of vision than possible through looking down the sights.

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

Omgitsme said:

Fine. What else do you think you have to do?

Click to expand...

If the victim isn't right in front of the shooter, he'll have to turn and locate the target.

Pumped up with adrenaline, that might not be as easy as it normally is because the adrenaline can produce tunnel vision.

This might take only half a second (ie a split second), or it might take considerably longer, particularly if the person has taken cover.

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

Surtr said:

It's actually very simple. In the Army we're trained in reflexive fire exercises to lower the weapon after we fire to prevent unwanted casualties. It's to build muscle memory, reduce unwanted casualties, and maintain a higher field of vision than possible through looking down the sights.

Click to expand...

Yes, in the army, with repetitive training so it becomes a reflexive action. I agree.

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

sangha said:

If the victim isn't right in front of the shooter, he'll have to turn and locate the target.

Pumped up with adrenaline, that might not be as easy as it normally is because the adrenaline can produce tunnel vision.

This might take only half a second (ie a split second), or it might take considerably longer, particularly if the person has taken cover.

Click to expand...

They would have to do that if their weapon was at the ready as well. Raising your weapon is only going to add a split second onto the time it takes to shoot and you arnt going to be fatigued when shooting from holding your weapon at the ready.

CLAX1911 said:

Being that pistols are far more likely to be used in crime

Click to expand...

That's a trick question in 2 ways:
1. Some pistols are also 'assault weapons", they aren't necessarily different things.
2. Neither pistols or "assault weapons" are dangerous items. Firearms are in fact very safe to have on and about your person.

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

sangha said:

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.

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter because every kind of firearm should be freely accessible to anyone who wants one. Grips, mags, scopes, whatever, doesn't matter, all should be as freely accessible as any car or same-sex marriage or abortion or liquor or tobacco or anything else.

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

sangha said:

Yes, in the army, with repetitive training so it becomes a reflexive action. I agree.

Click to expand...

It takes maybe half a day of training to get down. The AR-15 was designed so that someone who never shot a firearm before could get issued one, and become a proficient marksman in under a week. It's a terrible rifle though, plagued with inherent flaws and weaknesses.

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

Jerry said:

Doesn't matter because every kind of firearm should be freely accessible to anyone who wants one. Grips, mags, scopes, whatever, doesn't matter, all should be as freely accessible as any car or same-sex marriage or abortion or liquor or tobacco or anything else.

Click to expand...

So you agree with the others who claim that those features are purely cosmetic, and would be of no use to a civilian?

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

sangha said:

So you agree with the others who claim that those features are purely cosmetic, and would be of no use to a civilian?

Click to expand...

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.

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

I think any firearm in the hands of a liberal is dangerous because they don't know how to use them. They might shoot their ear or finger off watching MSNBC and not paying attention to their right as an American. Or maybe that was out of line and their are some libs here on DP that have firearms and are not buying into this hysteria of taking our rights away.

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

Awesome! said:

I think any firearm in the hands of a liberal is dangerous because they don't know how to use them. They might shoot their ear or finger off watching MSNBC and not paying attention to their right as an American. Or maybe that was out of line and their are some libs here on DP that have firearms and are not buying into this hysteria of taking our rights away.

Click to expand...

I'm less concerned about a liberal with a gun, and more concerned about a liberal with a pen.

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

sangha said:

I said nothing about pistol grips improving the rate of fire.





And additional rounds heat itup even more. More importantly, repeated fire means the barrel *stays* hot.

If the shooter only intends on shooting one bullet, then a shroud is irrelevant. But, as is the case in some recent incidents, the shooter intends to engage in prolonged period of shooting people, the shroud can be of assistance to the shooter.

And rifles with pistols grips can be fired with one hand

Pistol grips also make it easier to place the operating controls ergonomically, making it easier to release the magazine while keeping ones finger on the trigger, which can be helpful to someone who intends to shoot a lot of people. It can also make it easier to switch fire modes.

Click to expand...

Reading comprehension. Quoting yourself. Basic physics.

All are things you have failed at in this thread.

First of all, you can't fire a weapon while performing a magazine change, because you perform a magazine change when you are out of bullets to fire. And "assault weapons" (hearafter referred to as "defense weapons") do not have selective fire capability.

Are you arguing with any specific point in mind, or do you just crave attention? It is beyond obvious that you dont have the first clue as to what you are talking about.

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

finebead said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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

sangha said:

If the "cosmetics" are not the issue, then why do the rightwingers repeatedly make dishonest claims about cosmetics?

Click to expand...

Please list the claims.

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

finebead said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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

sangha said:

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?

Click to expand...

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

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

DA60 said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

ttwtt78640 said:

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.

Click to expand...

He's actually trying to compare assault rifles with other weapons straight out, but won't admit to that.

CLAX1911 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

sangha said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

CLAX1911 said:

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

Click to expand...

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?

sangha said:

Here's A Glossary Of Need-To-Know Terms For The Assault Weapons Ban Debate - Business Insider

Click to expand...

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.

Gun Stocks & Grips SALE Rifle Stocks, 1911 Grips, Shotgun Stocks, Pistol Grips

Click to expand...

"...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....

advantages of a pistol grip [Archive] - Calguns.net

Click to expand...

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

Pistol grip - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

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?

CLAX1911 said:

situation still doesn't matter, if person A and B are not killers, then the situation isn't dangerous.

Click to expand...

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.