• 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?

TurtleDude said:
since this forum does not likely include politicians who matter, I would note that some arguments are designed to convince-or at least plausibly threaten (remember Congressman what happened to the last guy in this district who voted for gun bans-he's no longer in office)

other people are just tools of the gun control movement and are best used as examples
Click to expand...

While there have been setbacks, the historical trend favors greater restrictions. That would indicate that a change in tactics is called for.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

sangha said:
While there have been setbacks, the historical trend favors greater restrictions. That would indicate that a change in tactics is called for.
Click to expand...

Actually the courts have come around to our side and CCW permits-once rare 30 years ago, are now the rule in most states. The scholarship is on our side as is the empirical evidence. The biggest obstacle we face is dishonest media and politicians who lie
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

TurtleDude said:
Actually the courts have come around to our side and CCW permits-once rare 30 years ago, are now the rule in most states. The scholarship is on our side as is the empirical evidence. The biggest obstacle we face is dishonest media and politicians who lie
Click to expand...

I would admit that the last 20 years has gone well for you. However, both long-term history and recent sympathies suggest that may be an aberration
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

sangha said:
I would admit that the last 20 years has gone well for you. However, both long-term history and recent sympathies suggest that may be an aberration
Click to expand...

well maybe the final showdown will involve those who have guns dealing with those who want others with guns to disarm the former

I kind of think I know who will win that argument:mrgreen:
 
sangha said:
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.
Click to expand...

1) Your hands help keep the gun tight. Not an accessory. I take it you don't use long arms?

2) That is a ridiculous comment. 1 handed shooting is not efficient. It doesn't matter what grip you have. Life ain't a video game son. You try shoot 1 handed if you like, I and the rest of knowledgable shooters will select our grip based on comfort.

3) And so you want to base legislation against pistol grips because of a select few scenarios where a shooter is already wounded and essentially out of the fight? Dude get real.

This is a busted argument. Give up before you even further educate us on your lack of knowledge.
 
stonewall50 said:
1) Your hands help keep the gun tight. Not an accessory. I take it you don't use long arms?

2) That is a ridiculous comment. 1 handed shooting is not efficient. It doesn't matter what grip you have. Life ain't a video game son. You try shoot 1 handed if you like, I and the rest of knowledgable shooters will select our grip based on comfort.

3) And so you want to base legislation against pistol grips because of a select few scenarios where a shooter is already wounded and essentially out of the fight? Dude get real.

This is a busted argument. Give up before you even further educate us on your lack of knowledge.
Click to expand...

IN all fairness, Sangha has been rather careful not to actually come out and support bans based on these features
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

TurtleDude said:
well maybe the final showdown will involve those who have guns dealing with those who want others with guns to disarm the former

I kind of think I know who will win that argument:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Not even close
 
sangha said:
Mainly because I don't support a bans based on those features
Click to expand...

we have no controversy on that issue of what you have advocated
 
Jerry said:
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.
Click to expand...

1) most pistols use in crime, are not assault weapons.
2)correct
 
CLAX1911 said:
1) most pistols use in crime, are not assault weapons.
Click to expand...
That doesn't change what I said :2wave:

"Some pistols are also assault weapons" does not contradict "most pistols use in crime, are not assault weapons". Both can be true at the same time.
 
TurtleDude said:
IN all fairness, Sangha has been rather careful not to actually come out and support bans based on these features
Click to expand...

I suppose you are right. Doesn't change that he is wrong about the pistol grip though lol.
 
Jerry said:
That doesn't change what I said :2wave:

"Some pistols are also assault weapons" does not contradict "most pistols use in crime, are not assault weapons". Both can be true at the same time.
Click to expand...

I expect a level of intelligence in debate forum. Where your statement may be true, it is irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
seems to me there are enough idiotic posts by gun haters for pro gun advocates to take issue with rather than getting into a pissing contest over definitions. But the fact remains, the stuff that the democrats want to ban is not based on "dangerous features" but rather how readily they can convince the LIVs that those weapons are like the stuff LIVs see in movies and violent TV shows.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

sangha said:
Yes, that is the crux of the disagreement. As far as how much of a difference it makes, I have not made any assertions, so I have nothing to prove. My point being that if these features do make a difference, then it is dishonest for some people to claim that they don't make any difference, or are purely cosmetic.
Click to expand...

As has already been stated, these features do have functions, and none of those functions make a rifle any more dangerous. They look more dangerous, but they are not more dangerous... which is why the call to ban them is based on purely cosmetic grounds.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

Gonzo Rodeo said:
As has already been stated, these features do have functions, and none of those functions make a rifle any more dangerous. They look more dangerous, but they are not more dangerous... which is why the call to ban them is based on purely cosmetic grounds.
Click to expand...

you are sort of correct. They don't even make the weapon in a vacuum look more dangerous

what they do is they make the weapon look like a military weapon which movies and the press have told people are dangerous.

In the late 80's a particular venal POS named Josh Sugarmann (who had been booted from the Brady conspiracy against our second amendment rights) realized that the democratic party's jihad against pistols was floundering so he wanted to find another angle to disarm (conservative) law abiding americans who might oppose his socialist extremism with more than talk So he sent a paper to left leaning journalists telling them that the average LIV couldn't tell the difference between an AR 15 and an M16 and that the journalists should deliberately confuse the two by showing films of RAMBO etc when talking about "assault weapons"

its guilt by association with weapons that should be the most sacrosanct under the second amendment-standard infantry or militia weapons
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

TurtleDude said:
you are sort of correct. They don't even make the weapon in a vacuum look more dangerous

what they do is they make the weapon look like a military weapon which movies and the press have told people are dangerous.
Click to expand...

Pretty much what I said, yeah. "Military" looks must mean military capability. That's the ridiculous logic in play, I surmise.

I suppose Hummers should be banned too. Because, you know, they look military, and nobody needs a vehicle made for screening armor movements and negotiating rough terrain. That is a military function, and as such poses a danger to the peaceful, law abiding citizens of San Fransisco.
 
Jerry said:
Maybe you should start living by your own standard.
Click to expand...

it's called context. If someone says "are assault weapons more dangerous than pistols" obvious to a third grader that that assault weapons includes assault weapons, hence the usage of the phrase assault weapons. And the versa being pistols, following context one would understand, that I was referring to non assault weapon pistols.

So you either lack simple context understanding or you are trying to be cute.

Don't insult my intelligence because you make stupid statements.
 
CLAX1911 said:
I expect a level of intelligence in debate forum. Where your statement may be true, it is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
CLAX1911 said:
it's called context. If someone says "are assault weapons more dangerous than pistols" obvious to a third grader that that assault weapons includes assault weapons, hence the usage of the phrase assault weapons. And the versa being pistols, following context one would understand, that I was referring to non assault weapon pistols.

So you either lack simple context understanding or you are trying to be cute.

Don't insult my intelligence because you make stupid statements.
Click to expand...

Obviously not irrelevant, except maybe in your own mind, since multiple people are making the point.

Logan's Law #6: Common Sense isn't

To you maybe, it is common sense to say that you are comparing all assault weapons (pistol, rifle, shotgun) to only non-assault pistols. To others it is common sense that the way your OP is worded that you are comparing a weapon type with itself, at least in potential since assault weapons covers pistols.

Simply because you feel that you made a clear context does not mean that it is so. And obviously it is not so. I have gone back and, while maintaining that my point stands, that I have not sufficiently worded my OP as to make my point clear. Are you too proud to do the same?
 
Last edited:
maquiscat said:
Obviously not irrelevant, except maybe in your own mind, since multiple people are making the point.

Logan's Law #6: Common Sense isn't

To you maybe, it is common sense to say that you are comparing all assault weapons (pistol, rifle, shotgun) to only non-assault pistols. To others it is common sense that the way your OP is worded that you are comparing a weapon type with itself, at least in potential since assault weapons covers pistols.

Simply because you feel that you made a clear context does not mean that it is so. And obviously it is not so. I have gone back and, while maintaining that my point stands, that I have not sufficiently worded my OP as to make my point clear. Are you too proud to do the same?
Click to expand...

head games are always irrelevant. any third grader on this planet is capable of picking out context you just insist on playing head games because you haven't got a relevant point to make.
 
CLAX1911 said:
it's called context. If someone says "are assault weapons more dangerous than pistols" obvious to a third grader that that assault weapons includes assault weapons, hence the usage of the phrase assault weapons. And the versa being pistols, following context one would understand, that I was referring to non assault weapon pistols.

So you either lack simple context understanding or you are trying to be cute.

Don't insult my intelligence because you make stupid statements.
Click to expand...
OP made a false comparison. I'm sorry you aren't smart enough to understand what that is, but you shouldn't demand intelligence from others until you can begin to demonstrate some yourself. Have a good day :2wave:
 
Jerry said:
OP made a false comparison. I'm sorry you aren't smart enough to understand what that is, but you shouldn't demand intelligence from others until you can begin to demonstrate some yourself. Have a good day :2wave:
Click to expand...

It wasn't false, assault weapon is a euphemism that includes a vast array of shotguns rifles and pistols. Pistol is an actual type of gun. When I gave the either or choice I knew that some folks would get hung up in semantics, there always is a few on this forum.

You make no valid point, just a terrible English lesson on how to ignore context. So of that is your point, okay I got it, you don't have a firm grasp on the English language, that is the only point you made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom