• 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...

They are not any more dangerous that firearms not deemed to be assault weapon. Assault weapon bans are just a veiled attempt by anti-2nd amendment trash to ban all semiautomatic firearms. Nothing more nothing less. The "scary" features that make anti-gun weenies piss their panties is just a foot in the door. No anti-2nd amendment trash politician at the federal level would be stupid enough to call for an outright ban on semiautomatic firearms so they have to hide behind an assault weapons ban. Because if you look at some anti-2nd amendment states they outright labeled all semiautomatic rifles as assault weapons even those without the "scary" features that make anti-gun weenies piss their panties.
 
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...

A distinction without a difference.... A game of semantics played by gun advocates to distract/evade from the primary issue.

Any firearm that can mow down dozens of people in a matter of seconds is a weapon of war.

The only reason why bazookas and missile launchers aren't "protected" by the NRA is that the firearm industry doesn't produce and sell them, thus they can't profit from them.
No use in defending something you can't profit from...
 
Last edited:
HonestJoe said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're talking nonsense. I don't care about the general principle. I care about what they are trying to ban, and the rationale for the criteria they have selected. There's nothing "impossible" about defining what weapons are included in a category, and what weapons are not.
 
beancounter said:
A distinction without a difference.... A game of semantics played by gun advocates to distract/evade from the primary issue.

Any firearm that can mow down dozens of people in a matter of seconds is a weapon of war.

The only reason why bazookas and missile launchers aren't "protected" by the NRA is that the firearm industry doesn't produce and sell them, thus they can't profit from them.
No use in defending something you can't profit from...
Click to expand...

Laws are based entirely on semantics. Can you point me to the portion of the proposed law that distinguishes the weapons to be banned based on whether they can "mow down dozens of people in a matter of seconds?"

You can't? Ok, thanks for confirming that.
 
HonestJoe said:
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.
Click to expand...
that's because there isn't a simple definitive line. assault weapon is nomenclature fabricated by people that don't know what they're talking about. to describe cosmetic features on a gun that have nothing to do with its deadliness.
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.
Click to expand...
there isn't really an understandable difference between an AR-15 in any other rifle of the same caliber that is also semi-automatic.

The idea that there is, is a fabrication. It's a rifle just like any other.
 
Incredible.

With all the support for banning "assault weapons," why can't anyone provide a rational, straightforward basis for doing so?
 
Moon said:
Mine looks like the bottom one, but I’d like to make it look more like the bullpup. It’s a fun little rifle to plink with.
Click to expand...

22s are a lot of fun. 3 of us went thru probably nearly a thousand bullets thru Rugers - rifles and handguns. Most of those were .22 long rifle. The others were .223 thru a Mini 14 and couple of AR15s. The Mini 14 seemed working a bit better for everyone. It is more comfortable to hold and a lot of people are more used to the tradition feel and manner of holding a typical wood stock rifle profile.

Scary looking doesn't mean most lethal. THE most lethal rifle there was a 1960s Remington semi-auto hunting rifle. Very sleek.Lightweight. Nicely deep vanishes stock. Long thin barrel. Not intimidating whatsoever. Not like an AR15 22 caliber rifle (.223). Why is the only Remington more lethal? Because it's a 30.06 and does use a magazine. only 3 shells (3+1) from the factory but - well you about how it is magazines. ;)

If some crazed guy got all our rifles for a mass shooting, REALLY HOPE he uses the 22s, even if the AR15 .223 22s. Hope he doesn't pick my MIA .308 with just a regular looking original wood stock. Most of all, hope he doesn't pick the 60 year old Remington semi-auto 30.06 I bought used years ago for $250 - including the scope, carrying case and 6 boxes of soft point hunting ammo. MASSIVE internal damage - or firing my surplus black tips would go thru 1 inch steel, 4 inches reinforced concrete - or 3 or 4.

I guy with an M1A Garrand - only holding 8 - received the Medal Of Honor for killing well over 100 charging enemy - possibly as many as 200 - with a 30.06 semi auto. I saw his interview. He didn't want a Tommy gun (machine gun) nor a carbine. He said if the enemy was hit anywhere in the torso - high or low - that person immediately went down and was out. He was obviously firing as fast as he can with them coming so close they were throwing grenades - he said as close as 35 feet - he obviously firing - and reloading - fast as he could.

I TRULY believe it is the government and law enforcement working the anti-2A crowd and corporate-fascist media - the anti 2A people and MSM/Press/Internet controllers knowing NOTHING about firearms - that the AR15 22 caliber rifle with a big magazine is the most god awful, mass murderous and sinister weapon of war ever created by evil men.

Why? So the perpetual sociopathic, psychotic, sadist and otherwise severely psychologically disturbed people who want to kill a lot of people then pick the wicked looking .223 AR15. When they do, that tactic has saved lots and lots and lots of lives. Most people escape. Most people are only wounded. The numbers of dead do not even approach the number of deaths by other simple methods.
 
Tlrmln said:
Incredible.

With all the support for banning "assault weapons," why can't anyone provide a rational, straightforward basis for doing so?
Click to expand...

I have asked the leading hater of AR 15s on this board-the guy who has posted such idiocy as AR 15s are DESIGNED FOR HEAVY COMBAT, to tell us why an AR-15 with a plain barrel, a fixed position stock, and no bayonet lug was LEGAL under his beloved Clinton gun ban but if you added an adjustable stock and a bayonet lug or flash hider-it suddenly became an "ASSAULT WEAPON" that was UNUSUALLY DANGEROUS and was banned.


He has never ever attempted to answer that question
 
TurtleDude said:
I have asked the leading hater of AR 15s on this board-the guy who has posted such idiocy as AR 15s are DESIGNED FOR HEAVY COMBAT, to tell us why an AR-15 with a plain barrel, a fixed position stock, and no bayonet lug was LEGAL under his beloved Clinton gun ban but if you added an adjustable stock and a bayonet lug or flash hider-it suddenly became an "ASSAULT WEAPON" that was UNUSUALLY DANGEROUS and was banned.


He has never ever attempted to answer that question
Click to expand...

I have heard an explanation for a pistol grip being a relevant feature. Apparently, according to people who have never held, let alone fired, a rifle, it allows you go shoot from the hip better. This is total nonsense of course, but if there's one thing I want my mass shooter to be doing, it's shooting from the hip rather than aiming. In fact, maybe we should ban all guns WITHOUT pistol grips, based on this stupid argument.
 
Last edited:
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...

Wouldn't it seem to reason any caliber of semi automatic rifle that comes with a detachable magazine be a weapon that is more deadly then others.
Also detachable magazine that hold larger amounts of ammo let a shooter punch out more shots in a given time frame then smaller capacity magazines, due to the fact they would have to change mags during their shooting process.
Also shorter barrels and more compact rifles are more easily maneuverable to allow a person to swing left and right more quickly and give less ground to a person trying to away their gun by hand. What they lose in accuracy they make up for in maneuverability. This was the main reason for Israeli choosing to go with the bullpup rifle design for their military. Also the idea behind making SBR's illegal plus those guns don't have a hunting purpose.
If someone wanted a common sense gun control law which I don't think would do any good but less people would hate would be to ban any magazines over 31 rounds. Why 31 because a lot of guns were designed with a 30 round mag in mind. Also an SBR is legally defined as a rifle with a barrel shorter than 16 inches, or an overall length of less than 26 inches, and you right now you need a NFA stamp you could make these like the machine gun laws and ban these. As well as classify any rifle caliber gun not legally able to be made into a pistol which gets around the SBR law. But if you give an inch they will take a mile so id rather have no changes if they cant be civil about it.
 
jdog21 said:
Wouldn't it seem to reason any caliber of semi automatic rifle that comes with a detachable magazine be a weapon that is more deadly then others.
Also detachable magazine that hold larger amounts of ammo let a shooter punch out more shots in a given time frame then smaller capacity magazines, due to the fact they would have to change mags during their shooting process.
Also shorter barrels and more compact rifles are more easily maneuverable to allow a person to swing left and right more quickly and give less ground to a person trying to away their gun by hand. What they lose in accuracy they make up for in maneuverability. This was the main reason for Israeli choosing to go with the bullpup rifle design for their military. Also the idea behind making SBR's illegal plus those guns don't have a hunting purpose.
If someone wanted a common sense gun control law which I don't think would do any good but less people would hate would be to ban any magazines over 31 rounds. Why 31 because a lot of guns were designed with a 30 round mag in mind. Also an SBR is legally defined as a rifle with a barrel shorter than 16 inches, or an overall length of less than 26 inches, and you right now you need a NFA stamp you could make these like the machine gun laws and ban these. As well as classify any rifle caliber gun not legally able to be made into a pistol which gets around the SBR law. But if you give an inch they will take a mile so id rather have no changes if they cant be civil about it.
Click to expand...

I get that you're not trying to, but none of that actually answers my question, because none of it has to do with the criteria on which Dems are currently trying to ban certain firearms.

Do you have some evidence that SBRs are actually more deadly in a mass shooting (or any other) situation? Or is that just a supposition? Has anyone actually ever used one in a mass shooting?
 
Tlrmln said:
I get that you're not trying to, but none of that actually answers my question, because none of it has to do with the criteria on which Dems are currently trying to ban certain firearms.

Do you have some evidence that SBRs are actually more deadly in a mass shooting (or any other) situation? Or is that just a supposition? Has anyone actually ever used one in a mass shooting?
Click to expand...

I think Dems are currently trying to ban large capacity magazines but they take it to far and are trying for 10 max.

A SBR was used in the Dayton OH mass shooting, it was classified as a 5.56 pistol because of the stock was a wrist strap instead of a stock intended to be shouldered. But no a SBR isn't more deadly then a 45 ACP pistol when we are talking less then 30 yards. In fact a 45 ACP pistol would have the advantage. But over 50 yards the SBR would have the advantage at being more deadly. Also keep in mind practical applications, every day carry 45 ACP not so much for the SBR, Home defense 45 ACP easier to weld, drops the intruder harder, less likely to shoot throw multiple walls endangering others. Hunting-neither.
 
jdog21 said:
But over 50 yards the SBR would have the advantage at being more deadly.
Click to expand...

Over a pistol, yes, but that range the supposed advantages of an SBR over a non-SB rifle would cease to exist, and in fact might start to lean in favor of the longer barrelled rifle.

But again, none of this has anything to do with the topic of the thread. SBRs are already highly regulated, and as you mentioned, the weapon used in Dayton was not an SBR, but an AR pistol, and even so, the death toll there was relatively low compared to many other mass shootings and there's no indication that the length of his barrel made any difference.
 
Tlrmln said:
Over a pistol, yes, but that range the supposed advantages of an SBR over a non-SB rifle would cease to exist, and in fact might start to lean in favor of the longer barrelled rifle.

But again, none of this has anything to do with the topic of the thread. SBRs are already highly regulated, and as you mentioned, the weapon used in Dayton was not an SBR, but an AR pistol, and even so, the death toll there was relatively low compared to many other mass shootings and there's no indication that the length of his barrel made any difference.
Click to expand...

I think if your point is to make a difference then no non of the legislation would.
If you were looking to make common sense gun laws to make the public feel better then I think I laid out 3 changes that are reasonable.
 
bongsaway said:
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.
Click to expand...

you are misinformed that guns are mostly used to assault people. my facts which are from a CDC study that obama requested and spent a few million dollars to do are as follows. oh and spoiler alert when the results were given the president he made the study and everything about the study swept under the rug. on average in america each year between 750,000 to 1,500,000 times a firearm was used(any use brandishing, etc.) to prevent a crime. in the same year gun related deaths(yes they put suicides acc. disch. in to their numbers) was less than a thousand. now i agree any g.r.d.(gun related death) is tragic, but an epidemic? No that comes out to about 1/10th of 1% of the people saved by d.w.g.(defense with gun) shall not infringe means just that they had rapid fire weapons back when they wrote the documents our elected officials were sworn to uphold. the 2nd amm. doesnt give us a right, it states that we already have this right and our govt is not allowed to infringe on that right given to us by the fact of citizenship in the best country on earth. not perfect but the best imho
 
CLAX1911 said:
that's because there isn't a simple definitive line. assault weapon is nomenclature fabricated by people that don't know what they're talking about. to describe cosmetic features on a gun that have nothing to do with its deadliness. there isn't really an understandable difference between an AR-15 in any other rifle of the same caliber that is also semi-automatic.
Click to expand...
Good, we're in agreement on that aspect. Now can we reach agreement on the fact that there is a wide range of "deadliness" (for want of a better term) across all the different types of firearm available to the public and that there will be some weapons, configurations and attachments which would pose a much greater threat in the wrong hands?

My only point here is that I don’t consider the lack of definitive line to be a valid reason to just dismiss any and all gun control out of hand (no that wasn’t specifically stated but yes, I believe that was the underlying purpose of this thread). I suggest it’s a reason to offer different, better ways to address the issue.
 
jdog21 said:
I think if your point is to make a difference then no non of the legislation would.
If you were looking to make common sense gun laws to make the public feel better then I think I laid out 3 changes that are reasonable.
Click to expand...

There's nothing "common sense" about passing legislation solely for the purpose of deluding people into thinking they are safer.
 
HonestJoe said:
Good, we're in agreement on that aspect. Now can we reach agreement on the fact that there is a wide range of "deadliness" (for want of a better term) across all the different types of firearm available to the public and that there will be some weapons, configurations and attachments which would pose a much greater threat in the wrong hands?
Click to expand...
No all guns are deadly it doesn't matter if you paint it pink or put a tutu on it it's still a gun. So attachments aside from maybe a bayonet won't make them more deadly.

My only point here is that I don’t consider the lack of definitive line to be a valid reason to just dismiss any and all gun control out of hand (no that wasn’t specifically stated but yes,
Click to expand...
Right the Second Amendment is the reason to dismiss all gun control. Out of hand, as well as common sense.

gun control doesn't affect criminal Behavior.

I believe that was the underlying purpose of this thread). I suggest it’s a reason to offer different, better ways to address the issue.
Click to expand...
the issue of violence what a gun is called has no effect on violence.
 
4 days, no actual answer. Why am I not surprised?
 
Nothing, really. It's a silly and arbitrary classification of weapons that includes variations of things that otherwise would not be prohibited, but they look scarier or make people feel a certain way. I'm all for common sense regulation on firearms, but the "assault weapon" ban was always a dumb way to go about it.
 
Tlrmln said:
I get that you're not trying to, but none of that actually answers my question, because none of it has to do with the criteria on which Dems are currently trying to ban certain firearms.

Do you have some evidence that SBRs are actually more deadly in a mass shooting (or any other) situation? Or is that just a supposition? Has anyone actually ever used one in a mass shooting?
Click to expand...

I would guess just the opposite. I don't know the stats with .223, but most cartridges are designed with an average barrel length in mind. You want the energy to peak at the end of the barrel. Cut the barrel short and the energy disperses after the bullet the bullet is on its way.

In a .38 sp the difference between a two inch and an 8 inch barrel is roughly 40%. And don't even bother talking about accuracy. I suspect long and short barrel .223 would also have similar differences.

Not one of the items on any of the ban definitions lists I've seen would have any effect on the killing potential You will never get an answer regarding thumb hole pistol grip stocks or barrel shrouds because there isn't one.
 
jimbo said:
I would guess just the opposite. I don't know the stats with .223, but most cartridges are designed with an average barrel length in mind. You want the energy to peak at the end of the barrel. Cut the barrel short and the energy disperses after the bullet the bullet is on its way.

In a .38 sp the difference between a two inch and an 8 inch barrel is roughly 40%. And don't even bother talking about accuracy. I suspect long and short barrel .223 would also have similar differences.

Not one of the items on any of the ban definitions lists I've seen would have any effect on the killing potential You will never get an answer regarding thumb hole pistol grip stocks or barrel shrouds because there isn't one.
Click to expand...

There is an effect, for sure, but it's not going to be terribly relevant in most scenarios. Cut the barrel length down, and yeah, you're not gonna be shooting accurately at 300 yards anymore, but you'll do just fine in a crowded theater or hallway or sidewalk. The difference in velocity between a .38sp and a .223 cartridge is MASSIVE.

My gun and ammunition (PS90 , 5.7x28) were designed to be shot from a 10" barrel (P90), but laws require the civilian model to have a longer barrel. I would lose nothing by SBR'ing my gun, because it was meant to be shorter to start with.
 
HonestJoe said:
Good, we're in agreement on that aspect. Now can we reach agreement on the fact that there is a wide range of "deadliness" (for want of a better term) across all the different types of firearm available to the public and that there will be some weapons, configurations and attachments which would pose a much greater threat in the wrong hands?

My only point here is that I don’t consider the lack of definitive line to be a valid reason to just dismiss any and all gun control out of hand (no that wasn’t specifically stated but yes, I believe that was the underlying purpose of this thread). I suggest it’s a reason to offer different, better ways to address the issue.
Click to expand...

The trouble with your point. though, is that there isn't a wide range of deadliness. A semi auto is a semi auto. A .223 is a .223. No amount of fussing with the cosmetics is going to change that.
 
fknguy said:
you are misinformed that guns are mostly used to assault people. my facts which are from a CDC study that obama requested and spent a few million dollars to do are as follows. oh and spoiler alert when the results were given the president he made the study and everything about the study swept under the rug. on average in america each year between 750,000 to 1,500,000 times a firearm was used(any use brandishing, etc.) to prevent a crime. in the same year gun related deaths(yes they put suicides acc. disch. in to their numbers) was less than a thousand. now i agree any g.r.d.(gun related death) is tragic, but an epidemic? No that comes out to about 1/10th of 1% of the people saved by d.w.g.(defense with gun) shall not infringe means just that they had rapid fire weapons back when they wrote the documents our elected officials were sworn to uphold. the 2nd amm. doesnt give us a right, it states that we already have this right and our govt is not allowed to infringe on that right given to us by the fact of citizenship in the best country on earth. not perfect but the best imho
Click to expand...

a few years ago, most gun banners hadn't a clue about the term assault and why the military applied that term to select fire carbines. Now they do, and they now lie when they call semi auto carbines-"assault weapons".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom