• 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?

Noodlegawd

Somebody you used to know
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 17, 2019
Messages
21,605
Reaction score
8,557
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
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.
 
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.

In reality that is the crux of the problem. The automatic weapon ban was easy because, well , any weapon that is automatic is banned. No, I don’t agree with weapons ban, but at least the was “mostly” enforceable. I say mostly because of bump stocks was the loop hole as well as modifying parts.

The “idea” behind the assault weapons ban is to ban a weapon with “war-like” features which was IMO stupid. Because in war, any weapon you find is going to be used. I get the “idea” behind the ban (I.e. feel good to ban war-like things) but I don’t agree with it because as we saw with various accessories many weapons can be “war-like”. Unlike the automatic weapons ban this ban was left to much to idiotic Interpretation.
 
In reality that is the crux of the problem. The automatic weapon ban was easy because, well , any weapon that is automatic is banned. No, I don’t agree with weapons ban, but at least the was “mostly” enforceable. I say mostly because of bump stocks was the loop hole as well as modifying parts.

The “idea” behind the assault weapons ban is to ban a weapon with “war-like” features which was IMO stupid. Because in war, any weapon you find is going to be used. I get the “idea” behind the ban (I.e. feel good to ban war-like things) but I don’t agree with it because as we saw with various accessories many weapons can be “war-like”. Unlike the automatic weapons ban this ban was left to much to idiotic Interpretation.

I know they made some after market modification illegal, and some states expanded on that same list. But it still came down to mostly proper enforcement at that point.
 
Heller holds that firearms that are in common use and not UNUSUALLY dangerous are under the second amendment negative restriction on government action. Those who supported the idiotic clinton assault weapon ban have to explain the following

1) an AR 15 with a muzzle brake and fixed stock was legal but an AR 15 with any of these two features was banned


a) a flash hider
b) a bayonet lug
c) an adjustable stock
d) a pistol grip
e) a threaded barrel
f) a barrel shroud

can anyone claim that any of these items make an AR 15 UNUSUALLY dangerous?

of course not, nor can they claim that at 11 rounds, such a weapon becomes "Unusually dangerous"

the dishonesty of the anti gun movement is unmatched in American politics
 
In reality that is the crux of the problem. The automatic weapon ban was easy because, well , any weapon that is automatic is banned. No, I don’t agree with weapons ban, but at least the was “mostly” enforceable. I say mostly because of bump stocks was the loop hole as well as modifying parts.

The “idea” behind the assault weapons ban is to ban a weapon with “war-like” features which was IMO stupid. Because in war, any weapon you find is going to be used. I get the “idea” behind the ban (I.e. feel good to ban war-like things) but I don’t agree with it because as we saw with various accessories many weapons can be “war-like”. Unlike the automatic weapons ban this ban was left to much to idiotic Interpretation.

Lets see

war like things

Military uniform items-in college, the best and cheapest jacket for the sort of cold, often wet, environment in CT, was a surplus M65 field jacket. Surplus army boots were pretty good for lots environments too

I have a USMC fighting and utility knife> I have a p-38 military can opener. I have a spool of military issue surplus parachute cord. I have several army manuals on everything from hand to hand combat to battlefield first aid and weapons maintenance.

why should such things be banned?
 
I know they made some after market modification illegal, and some states expanded on that same list. But it still came down to mostly proper enforcement at that point.

Is proper enforcement allowing LEOs to have/use them? If so, then who are LEOs at war with?
 
Is proper enforcement allowing LEOs to have/use them? If so, then who are LEOs at war with?

Last I checked, law enforcement and swat forces used legal firearms.

I don't think they even have direct access to even high caliber rounds aside from some rifles.

Though I do know that some agencies have access to models of MP5s that have burst & full auto fire. Burst fire is most likely a favorite option among most of them, seeing as full auto isn't really that "friendly" to anyone nearby.
 
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.
I’m not a proponent of gun bans specifically and agree that there is no clear definition of “assault weapon” or definitive concepts that make them more dangerous.

I do think the general principle is fairly clear though, around the idea of weapons specifically designed with the purpose of being able to kill lots of people in close-to-medium range very quickly and effectively. Other weapons, such as single-shot hunting rifles or personal defence focused pistols don’t have that factor, though that obviously doesn’t mean they’re not deadly, especially in specific circumstances. Even weapons like sniper rifles or shotguns, which obviously have similar capabilities in given environments, have practical limitations that don’t make them the same general-purpose mass killing tools.

Beyond the ranting and rhetoric, much gun control campaigning is well intentioned, about seeking to reduce risk and recognising that it can’t be eliminated. Focusing on weapons which are by design more capable of causing the greatest harm in the wrong hands makes some kind of sense. The practical realities of how you do that is an entirely different question, possibly one with no viable answer.
 
Last I checked, law enforcement and swat forces used legal firearms.

I don't think they even have direct access to even high caliber rounds aside from some rifles.

Though I do know that some agencies have access to models of MP5s that have burst & full auto fire. Burst fire is most likely a favorite option among most of them, seeing as full auto isn't really that "friendly" to anyone nearby.

Those are only legal (in some states) because LEOs are exempt by law from their "common sense" magazine capacity restrictions.
 
Last I checked, law enforcement and swat forces used legal firearms.

I don't think they even have direct access to even high caliber rounds aside from some rifles.

Though I do know that some agencies have access to models of MP5s that have burst & full auto fire. Burst fire is most likely a favorite option among most of them, seeing as full auto isn't really that "friendly" to anyone nearby.

It's illegal for LEO's to use automatic fire on a citizen.
 
What makes "assault-style weapons" more dangerous than other weapons?


Perception and a lack of education and understanding of firearms.
 
Always a crowd favorite...
Which is/are the 'assault rifle'(or rifles)?
s-l1000.jpg

ruger 10 22 bullpup.jpg

ruger 10 22 wood stock.jpg
 

Attachments

  • th.jpg
    th.jpg
    19.7 KB · Views: 118
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.

They aren't more lethal. The anti-gunners are trying to set a prcedent so they can ban everything.
 
weapons specifically designed with the purpose of being able to kill lots of people in close-to-medium range very quickly and effectively.

The weapons that meet the definition of assault weapon in most statutes and bills I've seen are not so designed, nor are they any more effective at it than any number of other weapons that don't meet the definition.

Beyond the ranting and rhetoric, much gun control campaigning is well intentioned, about seeking to reduce risk and recognising that it can’t be eliminated. Focusing on weapons which are by design more capable of causing the greatest harm in the wrong hands makes some kind of sense. The practical realities of how you do that is an entirely different question, possibly one with no viable answer.

If it were so well-intentioned, why can't any of its proponents give a rational explanation for it. I have yet to see them provide any basis for the idea that the weapons they seek to ban "are more capable of causing the greatest harm in the wrong hands." So far, no one in this thread has even attempted to do so.
 
The weapons that meet the definition of assault weapon in most statutes and bills I've seen are not so designed, nor are they any more effective at it than any number of other weapons that don't meet the definition.
I was just expressing my opinion, including agreeing that putting the definition in legal terms is difficult if not impossible. Nobody has deemed to consult me when writing their gun laws though. :)

If it were so well-intentioned, why can't any of its proponents give a rational explanation for it.
I’ve no idea, but I suspect you get caught up in the ranting and rhetoric I mentioned (from all sides).

I have yet to see them provide any basis for the idea that the weapons they seek to ban "are more capable of causing the greatest harm in the wrong hands." So far, no one in this thread has even attempted to do so.
Again, I don’t see why you’d need to hear it from anyone else to understand (while not agreeing with) the idea that were specifically designed to kill lots of people in close quarters have a greater potential harm.

A major part of the ranting and rhetoric is things like this; people endlessly arguing over “evidence” and “proof” for simple principles and concepts, drowning out any kind of rational discussion over practical realities and actually doing any real-world good (the long-forgotten aim). If bans of assault weapons are a bad thing (or at least ineffective and impractical due to the definition issue, which I’d probably agree with), you should be able to make that argument. It’s just a little more effort than the dismissive demands you’re making here.
 
Those are only legal (in some states) because LEOs are exempt by law from their "common sense" magazine capacity restrictions.

Which would be understandable, seeing as criminals wouldn't be restricted to the same weapons as a normal citizen. Nor would they obey such standards either.

The issue here is understandable, it's just going to be one of those difficult to swallow pills that our law hands out. I don't really like the idea of our law enforcement being able to bring down such power up the public at any given time. But then again we have several branches of the military that could just as easily "launch" something at us from over half a kilometer away and just toss the numbers out the window.

It suck I know, but frankly we can only do so much about it.
 
It’s just a little more effort than the dismissive demands you’re making here.

How is it "dismissive" to ask for a rational explanation, based on facts, before something is banned?
 
Which would be understandable, seeing as criminals wouldn't be restricted to the same weapons as a normal citizen. Nor would they obey such standards either.

The issue here is understandable, it's just going to be one of those difficult to swallow pills that our law hands out. I don't really like the idea of our law enforcement being able to bring down such power up the public at any given time. But then again we have several branches of the military that could just as easily "launch" something at us from over half a kilometer away and just toss the numbers out the window.

It suck I know, but frankly we can only do so much about it.

Does that (bolded above) make any sense at all? To help combat violent crime we should limit the ability of crime victims to fight back as much as possible.
 
Does that (bolded above) make any sense at all? To help combat violent crime we should limit the ability of crime victims to fight back as much as possible.

gun control-as designed by democrats-is not motivated by any crime controlling purpose
 
How is it "dismissive" to ask for a rational explanation, based on facts, before something is banned?
Because you clearly understand the general principle of how weapons like high capacity, high calibre, rapid-firing assault rifles has the potential to cause much more harm in the wrong hands than weapons like single-shot rifles or small calibre revolvers but you're using the impossibility of establishing a definitive definition and measurement of those differences to simply dismiss "gun banners" out of hand rather than rationally addressing the problem and trying to help work out viable solutions.
 
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.

It's a scare tactic. The only reason to ban what they call assault weapons is to chip away at your right to bear arms.

Look at the bump stock thing Republicans compromised online and it didn't stop.

According to the 1994 assault weapons ban. an assault weapon is a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine that has two of the following features.

Folding or collapsible stock a bayonet lug a flash break or a pistol grip. So it wouldn't have banned any rifle certainly not the AR-15 or the AK-47.

Put the point is don't give them an inch. They just want to chip away at the right to keep and bear arms.

they will tell you nobody is trying to take away our guns but if you have an AR-15 they are absolutely trying to take away your gun.
 
Because you clearly understand the general principle of how weapons like high capacity, high calibre, rapid-firing assault rifles has the potential to cause much more harm in the wrong hands than weapons like single-shot rifles or small calibre revolvers but you're using the impossibility of establishing a definitive definition and measurement of those differences to simply dismiss "gun banners" out of hand rather than rationally addressing the problem and trying to help work out viable solutions.

The AR-15 is not a high caliber rifle it's a low caliber rifle in fact it's almost the lowest caliber you can get.

It isn't high capacity it can only hold one round in the chamber
 
The AR-15 is not a high caliber rifle it's a low caliber rifle in fact it's almost the lowest caliber you can get.

It isn't high capacity it can only hold one round in the chamber
That was kind of my point. I was just given example characteristics that might apply, but pointing out that there is no easy way to establish a simple definitive line. That doesn't mean there isn't an understandable difference between the nature of different types of firearm, only that there are fuzzy lines between them.
 
When any firearm is shooting, it's an assault weapon. Ask the squirrel shot by a 22 if it thinks the 22 is an assault weapon.

The person was killed by a single shot, assault weapon. The person was killed by multiple gunshots, assault weapon.

Firearms were invented with the specific idea of killing what you are shooting at. Assault weapon.

A firearm can indeed be used as self defense. Although in america they are mostly used to assault people.
 
Back
Top Bottom