• 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!

What makes "assault-style weapons" more dangerous than other weapons?

Tlrmln said:
I've been asking this question directly to many of the gun control fans here lately, and they all seem to be dodging the question.

I'm not interested in the debate about what "assault weapon" or any similar phrase supposedly mean historically or otherwise. I'm talking about the term as defined in the legislation that has been proposed by Democrats in Congress.

What makes a weapon that fits this definition more deadly than many other weapons that don't? And to save me trouble of asking later, let's see the evidence for your claim.
Click to expand...

This is what makes them more dangerous than other weapons.

Ohio man charged in threats to Jewish community center | TheHill

The obvious. When it's legal to own assault weapons and a thousand rounds of ammo, how do you stop assholes like this before the bodies begin hitting the floor?

Oh, that's right. Normal morons should not be denied their assault weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition just because some other moron hates Jews which by the way, is also not illegal. So, between the first and second Amendments, there is no stopping them until the blood flows. Is there?
 
calamity said:
This is what makes them more dangerous than other weapons.

Ohio man charged in threats to Jewish community center | TheHill

....

Oh, that's right. Normal morons should not be denied their assault weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition just because some other moron hates Jews which by the way, is also not illegal. So, between the first and second Amendments, there is no stopping them until the blood flows. Is there?
Click to expand...

That's one of the more intricate dodges I've gotten so far, but still quite clearly a dodge.

None of that explains what makes an "assault weapon" more dangerous than any other weapon, or how banning them, specifically, will make anyone safer. "Thousands of rounds of ammunition" is not an assault weapon (and when has a mass shooting ever involved "thousands of rounds of ammunition" being fired)?

Seriously, if this is the best argument you can make to support one of the marquis pieces of legislation being pushed by gun control zealots, why should anyone take you seriously about anything?

The obvious. When it's legal to own assault weapons and a thousand rounds of ammo, how do you stop assholes like this before the bodies begin hitting the floor?
Click to expand...

They DID stop him, in case you hadn't noticed. Ask THEM how, and maybe demand more of the same instead of more useless gun laws you can't even rationally justify.
 
Hard to believe that after a week, there still isn't an actual answer to my question.

You'd think that people who want to pass a federal law affecting millions of people would have a good reason for it.
 
Tlrmln said:
I've been asking this question directly to many of the gun control fans here lately, and they all seem to be dodging the question.

I'm not interested in the debate about what "assault weapon" or any similar phrase supposedly mean historically or otherwise. I'm talking about the term as defined in the legislation that has been proposed by Democrats in Congress.

What makes a weapon that fits this definition more deadly than many other weapons that don't? And to save me trouble of asking later, let's see the evidence for your claim.
Click to expand...

It is actually very simple, they can use magazines that allow them to shoot without reloading up to and probably more than a hundred times. That is what allowed the Dayton shooter to get off 42 rounds in just 32 seconds and kill 9 and wound 16 more. Hunting rifles can have not more than 15 or so rounds and reloading them takes time. Another fault is that many of these assault rifles can be retooled to fire as automatics.
 
Tlrmln said:
That's one of the more intricate dodges I've gotten so far, but still quite clearly a dodge.

None of that explains what makes an "assault weapon" more dangerous than any other weapon, or how banning them, specifically, will make anyone safer. "Thousands of rounds of ammunition" is not an assault weapon (and when has a mass shooting ever involved "thousands of rounds of ammunition" being fired)?

Seriously, if this is the best argument you can make to support one of the marquis pieces of legislation being pushed by gun control zealots, why should anyone take you seriously about anything?



They DID stop him, in case you hadn't noticed. Ask THEM how, and maybe demand more of the same instead of more useless gun laws you can't even rationally justify.
Click to expand...

The more likely someone is to demand a ban of these common sporting firearms, the less likely it is that they know what they are talking about
 
independentusa said:
It is actually very simple, they can use magazines that allow them to shoot without reloading up to and probably more than a hundred times. That is what allowed the Dayton shooter to get off 42 rounds in just 32 seconds and kill 9 and wound 16 more. Hunting rifles can have not more than 15 or so rounds and reloading them takes time. Another fault is that many of these assault rifles can be retooled to fire as automatics.
Click to expand...

the stupidity of the anti gun posts is amazing. If it can take a 15 round magazine, it can take a 100 round magazine.
 
Tlrmln said:
I've been asking this question directly to many of the gun control fans here lately, and they all seem to be dodging the question.

I'm not interested in the debate about what "assault weapon" or any similar phrase supposedly mean historically or otherwise. I'm talking about the term as defined in the legislation that has been proposed by Democrats in Congress.

What makes a weapon that fits this definition more deadly than many other weapons that don't? And to save me trouble of asking later, let's see the evidence for your claim.
Click to expand...

Do you know what a single shot rifle is?
How about a muzzle loader?
Semi auto?

Question. Which weapon could throw out more rounds in 5 seconds?

That may answer your OP question.
 
dairyair said:
Do you know what a single shot rifle is?
How about a muzzle loader?
Semi auto?

Question. Which weapon could throw out more rounds in 5 seconds?

That may answer your OP question.
Click to expand...

Nope, not even close. There's nothing in any proposed legal definition of "assault weapon" that has anything to do them being able to "throw out more rounds in 5 seconds" than any other weapon.

Try again.
 
independentusa said:
It is actually very simple, they can use magazines that allow them to shoot without reloading up to and probably more than a hundred times. That is what allowed the Dayton shooter to get off 42 rounds in just 32 seconds and kill 9 and wound 16 more. Hunting rifles can have not more than 15 or so rounds and reloading them takes time. Another fault is that many of these assault rifles can be retooled to fire as automatics.
Click to expand...

Sorry, that's wrong.

No definition of "assault weapon" used in any existing ban, or in the proposed federal ban, has anything to do with how large a magazine the weapon can accept or whether they can be modified to fire automatically.

Any detachable magazine-fed semiautomatic weapon can potentially use any size magazine, or be modified to fire automatically (which is already illegal, by the way).

In fact, the exact weapon used in the Norway massacre to kill a large portion of the 70 victims, doesn't qualify as an assault weapon under the proposed federal ban. It's actually SPECIFICALLY exempted.

It's amazing to me how many people support a bill that doesn't say what they think it says.
 
Last edited:
Considering more people are killed everyday in Chicago with hand guns than SO CALLED assault style weapons worldwide I'd say any gun used in an assault is an assault style weapon.

More people are killed by knives and hammers than SO CALLED assault style weapons.....and most of the guns used in these murders were not bought legally so more gun laws won't work.

We've been brainwashed to believe some guns are more evil like we used to think pot was more evil than booze

How are the gun bans working in Chicago ?
 
Tlrmln said:
Nope, not even close. There's nothing in any proposed legal definition of "assault weapon" that has anything to do them being able to "throw out more rounds in 5 seconds" than any other weapon.

Try again.
Click to expand...

Try again?
You didn't even answer the question I asked.
Do you not know which can put more rounds down range?

Note, that means, more rounds per second. Or more rounds without having to reload. Or more rounds in a shorter amount of time.
Do you know what rounds means?

It means, bullets leaving the barrel. Which weapons I listed can have more bullets leave the barrel the fastest.

A muzzle loader?
A single shot rifle?
Or a semi auto rifle?

This was my questions.
 
dairyair said:
Try again?
You didn't even answer the question I asked.
Do you not know which can put more rounds down range?

Note, that means, more rounds per second. Or more rounds without having to reload. Or more rounds in a shorter amount of time.
Do you know what rounds means?

It means, bullets leaving the barrel. Which weapons I listed can have more bullets leave the barrel the fastest.

A muzzle loader?
A single shot rifle?
Or a semi auto rifle?

This was my questions.
Click to expand...

I didn't answer the question because it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. The closest thing to your question that might have been relevant would be:

Which weapon could throw out more rounds in 5 seconds? An "assault weapon," or some other semiautomatic rifle that isn't an "assault weapon".
Click to expand...

And the answer would be: They're the same.
 
Tlrmln said:
I didn't answer the question because it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. The closest thing to your question that might have been relevant would be:



And the answer would be: They're the same.
Click to expand...

it is hard to debate or discuss issues with a side that invariably is either willfully ignorant or makes no effort to honestly understand the issues
 
Tlrmln said:
I didn't answer the question because it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. The closest thing to your question that might have been relevant would be:



And the answer would be: They're the same.
Click to expand...

makes-assault-style-weapons-more-dangerous-than-other-weapons

That ^^^^^^ is the thread title.
A muzzle loader is less dangerous than a semi auto. For obvious reasons.

Results can be the same, but in far far less time for muzzle loaders. Which, in terms of mass shootings, is less dangerous.
A spoon can be just as dangerous as a semi auto. For each could kill. But 1 is far far less dangerous in terms of intent and use.
 
TurtleDude said:
it is hard to debate or discuss issues with a side that invariably is either willfully ignorant or makes no effort to honestly understand the issues
Click to expand...

I agree. Why remain willfully ignorant? Why make no effort to be honest?
 
dairyair said:
I agree. Why remain willfully ignorant? Why make no effort to be honest?
Click to expand...

you should ask your side that question. I suspect I know more about firearms and firearms laws than the entire anti gun group of posters on this board. What makes a semi auto firearm "an assault style weapon" are cosmetic features that in no way increase how fast the weapon can be fired. Stuff like adjustable stocks, flash hiders, "barrel shrouds" or those lethal bayonet lugs for example
 
dairyair said:
makes-assault-style-weapons-more-dangerous-than-other-weapons

That ^^^^^^ is the thread title.
A muzzle loader is less dangerous than a semi auto. For obvious reasons.

Results can be the same, but in far far less time for muzzle loaders. Which, in terms of mass shootings, is less dangerous.
A spoon can be just as dangerous as a semi auto. For each could kill. But 1 is far far less dangerous in terms of intent and use.
Click to expand...

Oh boy, you really got me there. Okay, you're right. An assault weapon is more dangerous than a muzzle loader. Do you want your cookie now, or after you grow up?
 
dairyair said:
I agree. Why remain willfully ignorant? Why make no effort to be honest?
Click to expand...

It's pretty ironic to read a claim of willful ignorance from someone who claims to think that I was asking for a comparison between assault weapons to muzzle loaders.
 
Tlrmln said:
Oh boy, you really got me there. Okay, you're right. An assault weapon is more dangerous than a muzzle loader. Do you want your cookie now, or after you grow up?
Click to expand...

LOL. Now the debate loser drops to personal attacks.

Thank you
 
TurtleDude said:
you should ask your side that question. I suspect I know more about firearms and firearms laws than the entire anti gun group of posters on this board. What makes a semi auto firearm "an assault style weapon" are cosmetic features that in no way increase how fast the weapon can be fired. Stuff like adjustable stocks, flash hiders, "barrel shrouds" or those lethal bayonet lugs for example
Click to expand...

What is my side?
BTW - I own a 30-06 semi auto. Use it for deer hunting.
 
Tlrmln said:
It's pretty ironic to read a claim of willful ignorance from someone who claims to think that I was asking for a comparison between assault weapons to muzzle loaders.
Click to expand...

From your OP.
What makes a weapon that fits this definition more deadly than many other weapons that don't?
Click to expand...

So I asked.
Muzzle loader.
single shot rifle.
Or what ever you want to decide is assault rifle.

Which is more deadly. I agree they are all equally deadly. But 1 is far far more effective at being deadly in terms of deaths per second. I guess you don't agree..
 
dairyair said:
LOL. Now the debate loser drops to personal attacks.

Thank you
Click to expand...

The only debate I lost was the one that you made up out of thin air and that I had no interest in having. Implying that your games are childish isn't a personal attack, it's an accurate observation.
 
TurtleDude said:
the stupidity of the anti gun posts is amazing. If it can take a 15 round magazine, it can take a 100 round magazine.
Click to expand...

Remington Model 750 - Wikipedia
This is a typical semiautomatic hunting rifle As you can see it is able to use a magazine up to 10 rounds. So maybe I am not as stuppid as yu think. there are many rifles like this used for hunting that can not take large magazines,.
 
independentusa said:
Remington Model 750 - Wikipedia
This is a typical semiautomatic hunting rifle As you can see it is able to use a magazine up to 10 rounds. So maybe I am not as stuppid as yu think. there are many rifles like this used for hunting that can not take large magazines,.
Click to expand...

You are confused between a rifle where the magazines designed for it go up to ten rounds, with your idiotic claims that it cannot take large magazines.

Example-I have a HK SL-8 rifle that only came with ten round magazines. That is all HK made for it. But guess what-PRO MAG made an aftermarket magazine that holds 20

From WIKI U.S. SL8 rifles accept only a single-column, 10-round magazine.

so Pro Mag came up with this

https://promagindustries.com/hk-sl8-6-223-20-rd-black-polymer/



You seem unable to comprehend that if it takes a removable magazine-someone can make one larger.
 
Tlrmln said:
The only debate I lost was the one that you made up out of thin air and that I had no interest in having. Implying that your games are childish isn't a personal attack, it's an accurate observation.
Click to expand...

What makes a weapon that fits this definition more deadly than many other weapons that don't?
Click to expand...
From YOUR OP.
Now you should run from your own thread, simply for not knowing your own OP. And for personal attacks. The debate tactic of the loser in the argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom