• 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?

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

I own a pistol that is .45 cal and has a 16 round magazine +1. It also has a 5" barrel. It is semiautomatic and accurate. I could have done just as much damage at any of these crimes were lots of people were injured or killed.

Pistols are far more likely to be used in crimes by a huge margin. Yet they want to ban a hard to conceal semi -automatic rifle rarely used in crime because it looks scary.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

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

They will never get pistols because too many women have them as their gun of choice, so they go after assault weapons, whatever that is, to score political points. None of this is about protecting people--it is about polarizing the bases.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

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

I think the term "assault weapon" is deceiving. Any weapon, in the wrong hands, with criminal intent, is an assault weapon. It's not the instrument that makes it so, it's the human who chooses to use it in that manner.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

Neither - since without a criminal operator they both will just sit there. What must be considered is how they are used. An easily concealed handgun allows for discrete use, while a bulky AW does not. Obviously the long range accuracy of the AW is greater but, that is only important for use on long range targets, crime tends to be an up close and personal affair.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

The whole gun control debate coalesces, not around conventional armed robbery or murder, but mass killings by which the U.S. seems peculiarly afflicted. There are no mass killings in recent memory that I can recall that have utilized a so-called assault weapon. In fact, the Virginia Tech massacre, the worst single shooter mass killing in U.S. history, was perpetrated with a .22 and a 9mm pistol. The shooter in that case had copious magazines and could easily reload.

The essence of reducing mass shooting casualties is to a. keep guns out of the hands of mentally unstable people and b. reduce the ability of mass shooters to quickly reload. Even a brief delay to reload might give enough breathing room for someone to escape or attack the attacker.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

Assault weapons would do more damage if you dropped one on your toe.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

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

Semiautomatic pistols labeled assault weapons are no more no less lethal than those not labeled assault weapons.Assault weapon applies to the cosmetic features of semiautomatic pistols and rifles with detachable magazines and shot guns with certain features(two or more of the following -Folding or telescoping stock, Pistol grip, Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds, Detachable magazine.), not the actual function of the firearm. Its basically like arguing if pink guns are more lethal than black guns of the same make and model.
 
Last edited:
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

Semiautomatic pistols labeled assault weapons are no more no less lethal than those not labeled assault weapons.Assault weapon applies to the cosmetic features of semiautomatic firearms with detachable magazines, not the actual function of the firearm. Its basically like arguing if pink guns are more lethal than black guns of the same make and model.

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

It depends on which measure you're using

Well lets see...

Pistols used in more crimes, check!
Pistols killed more people than all other weapon types combined, check!

I don't know, what measure are you using?
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

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.

Well please explain when was the last time someone was bayoneted to death in a crime? Or beat with a flash suppressor?

You don't know anything about firearms.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

Does anyone have access to or can link me to statistics that show which States in America have the highest/lowest levels of legal gun ownership compared to the use of illegal guns in the commission of crime? Do such statistics exist?
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

The whole gun control debate coalesces, not around conventional armed robbery or murder, but mass killings by which the U.S. seems peculiarly afflicted. There are no mass killings in recent memory that I can recall that have utilized a so-called assault weapon. In fact, the Virginia Tech massacre, the worst single shooter mass killing in U.S. history, was perpetrated with a .22 and a 9mm pistol. The shooter in that case had copious magazines and could easily reload.

The essence of reducing mass shooting casualties is to a. keep guns out of the hands of mentally unstable people and b. reduce the ability of mass shooters to quickly reload. Even a brief delay to reload might give enough breathing room for someone to escape or attack the attacker.

You ignore the use of multiple guns/magazines. While you may have to change magazines (about 2 seconds) more often using 10 to 15 round magazines, having a second gun "at the ready" makes the magazine swap "opportunity" to rush the attacker a very bad plan. Since many (most?) mass shooters do not intend to get away they tend to come over supplied with guns/ammo for the "mission". I am by no means an expert marksman but can use either hand with sufficient accuracy, at under 7 yards, to stop anyone rushing me. If your plan is to count off ten rounds and then "make a move" you have a very bad plan. ;)
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

I think people tend to be less careful with pistol's. People with assault rifles tend respect them more. I don't think as many accidents happen with "assault" weapons as they do pistols.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

Well please explain when was the last time someone was bayoneted to death in a crime?

I believe the most recent death by bayonet was during the second Presidential debate.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

i believe the most recent death by bayonet was during the second presidential debate.

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

Well lets see...

Pistols used in more crimes, check!
Pistols killed more people than all other weapon types combined, check!

I don't know, what measure are you using?

Try listing gun homicides by the number of people killed.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

Well please explain when was the last time someone was bayoneted to death in a crime? Or beat with a flash suppressor?

You don't know anything about firearms.

So it's your belief that bayonets and flash suppressors have no function at all and are purely cosmetic?

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

In capable hands, neither are all that dangerous.

In incapable hands, both are dangerous.

The main difference is that "assault" weapons are scarier. People are convinced that "assault" weapons are more dangerous. People are convinced that "assault" weapons are more apt to be used in mass murders.

People are sheep. Stupid ass sheep.

Look at what Sandy Hook did. It was basically a cattle call for those bereft of an iota of information about firearms. Hell, even on a political forum, we're swamped with these ignorant sheep.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

So it's your belief that bayonets and flash suppressors have no function at all and are purely cosmetic?

:lamo

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

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 501px-PostbanAR15A2standard.jpg less dangerous than thisAR15_A3_Tactical_Carbine_pic1.jpg?
 
Last edited:
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

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

In truth, there are no dangerous firearms... only dangerous people.
 
Back
Top Bottom