• 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?

Omgitsme said:
I dont care if the right wingers are focusing on pistol grips or not or what they are saying. I do believe that pistol grips do not make a weapon more dangerous however.

Your links do not show anything. I could easily find a few bad sources that back up my opinion like you have. And your right I havent backed up my position with links yet. But you are the one who made the claim so you should have to be the one to back it up.

Ive stated what I want when I say data. I want something that actually took and compared a rifle with a pistol grip and a rifle without a pistol grip to see if the one with a pistol grip is more accurate, more stable, and all the other things you claim it does.

I never said that you agreed with me that the max effective range is the best measure of accuracy. Read what I wrote again. I said it is the best way to measure the range of what a weapon can be accurate at. I then went on to explain that we were talking about ranges that a weapon can be effective at.
Click to expand...

You have the right to care (or not) about whatever you want. However, there are people making claims that are demonstrably false, and I see nothing wrong with my pointig that out.

As far as pistol grips being effective, I doubt that anyone has scientifically determined this. However, the effectiveness of pistol grips is amply demonstrated by their wide usage by govt agencies that care not a whit about aesthetics. They arm their agents with rifles that have pistol grips for a reason, and that reason is not because it makes them look better or scarier.

And yes, I get what you're saying regarding the max eff range, but my point isn't the max eff range, it's about the dangerousness of a weapon and whether or not a pistol grip contributes to that. I don't believe the term "dangerousness" can be determined using one measure. The same goes for measuring accuracy. Different weapons are more suited for certain situations, and other weapons are more suited for thers. The dangerousness of a weapon is not determined by one measure, but by the capabilities o the weapon and the situations it's used in
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

finebead said:
I think ya'll are over-thinking this.

Common sense definition of an assault rifle: If a rifle is a semi automatic and it was trialed or selected in any police or military tactical rifle trial, it is an assault rifle. Make and maintain a list.
Click to expand...

Kal'Stang said:
So you define a weapons by its name rather than by what it can do? Hmm....I think Turtle was right, your position IS silly.
Click to expand...

You are obviously not following along. Your statement is the silly one.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

Omgitsme said:
Umm im slightly confused. I was saying that fully automatic weapons are difficult to control not semiautomatic weapons.
Click to expand...
I was referring to the principle weapon used at Newtown, which was a semi-automatic weapon (in theory - they can be ordered as semi or fully automatic).

Besides, you don't have to fire an automatic weapon on full. You can fire short bursts or often set the weapon for short bursts (like 3 rounds).
 
Last edited:
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

DA60 said:
You don't have to fire an automatic weapon on full. You can fire short bursts or set the weapon for short bursts (like 3 rounds).
Click to expand...

full auto is mainly designed to

1) break contact

2) suppress movement of the enemy

3) provide cover for allies to maneuver
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

finebead said:
You are obviously not following along. Your statement is the silly one.
Click to expand...

No, you have demonstrated in your posts a paucity of understanding of what the terms mean.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

TurtleDude said:
Its still stupid because none of those NON AUTOMATIC weapons are suitable for an ASSAULT as contemplated by those who defined the term assault weapon in the 40s

Anti gun scumbag politicians and their toadies in the press use that term to scare people who are too ignorant or stupid to understand that "assault" as applied to the weapons is a specific military concept that is not achievable with semi auto only.
Click to expand...

I specifically chose the common sense definition that I did, and yes I excluded WWI assault rifles that were bolt actions, I also excluded bows and arrows which were Indian assault weapons in the 19th century, as I excluded slings such as David used to slay Goliath. I also excluded clubs that cavemen used as assault weapons. You have to draw a line somewhere, and I drew mine in WWII.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

finebead said:
I specifically chose the common sense definition that I did, and yes I excluded WWI assault rifles that were bolt actions, I also excluded bows and arrows which were Indian assault weapons in the 19th century, as I excluded slings such as David used to slay Goliath. I also excluded clubs that cavemen used as assault weapons. You have to draw a line somewhere, and I drew mine in WWII.
Click to expand...

more idiocy. BOLT ACTIONS are not assault rifles

if you cannot understand the accepted definitions, your arguments are going to be seen as childish, ignorant or just plain DISHONEST

a bolt action like the MAUSER 98 is called a BATTLE RIFLE

You drew your line based on ignorance apparently since your definitions are clownish.

you apparently want to use a different definition of "assault" than what was used for the description of a selective fire, carbine sized weapon firing an intermediate cartridge from a detachable box magazine
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

TurtleDude said:
more idiocy. BOLT ACTIONS are not assault rifles

if you cannot understand the accepted definitions, your arguments are going to be seen as childish, ignorant or just plain DISHONEST

a bolt action like the MAUSER 98 is called a BATTLE RIFLE

You drew your line based on ignorance apparently since your definitions are clownish.

you apparently want to use a different definition of "assault" than what was used for the description of a selective fire, carbine sized weapon firing an intermediate cartridge from a detachable box magazine
Click to expand...

Times change, and we have to change with them. In WWI the bolt action rifle was the assault weapon that soldiers used to charge the enemy trench lines.

My definition does cover the vast majority of what most people would consider assault rifles today. It's a good common sense definition.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

sangha said:
If that is the case, then shouldn't the response be an explanation of what those features do and how they do not pose any danger to the public? Wouldn't that be more effective (and honest) than arguing the falsehood that they are purely cosmetic?
Click to expand...



Cosmetics are fun to play with. I'm an average skilled shooter at best. But do I have the firearms to suggest I am a real marksman. Such as my Weatherby .300 magnum with a custom match stainless steel barrel and very exotic wood thumbhole stock - a VERY long range precision rifle and a pointedly excellent scope - all I bought used (like nearly everything) taking advantage of the prices of such firearms falling as people rush to .223 and 9mm. I have quite a few firearms that suggest I am a very, very skilled marksmen. That Custom Weatherby with modifications new? About $12,000. I paid 1/10th that. Same for the Weatherby .257 magnum - only also fluted stainless custom match barrel, accubrake, and one of those super fine carved Weatherby stocks. And a very excellent engraved over-under Krieghoff shotgun - plus of course my tricked out MIA now with target stock and a nice day/night scope. Those Weatherby's have a very distinct report when fired!

So... to continue the imagry, I had gone on Ebay and bought a like-new old shooter's jacket and a bunch of vintage marksmen awards patches (had the Biker shop sew them on), plus a dozen or so firearms clubs and matches pins to put on my hat. By my garb, I've been winning shooting matches for at least 2 decade and across the South and Midwest. LOL!

Laid it out, plus spotter scope, at a range. Didn't fire many rounds, just checked to see if the scopes on the Weatherby's were still on the mark. I was shooting groupings no better than average, where with those 2 rifles 3 shots at only 100 yards in dead air should only have been all but just 1 hole. Actually, 1 1/2 inch groupings was pretty crappy shooting!

Despite the actual reality, my wife reported overhearing a few guys inside the check-in building talking how no one would be fool enough to do the typical $1 a shot gambling like they do with each other with me. Probably everyone of of them could out shoot me with their $500 Remingtons. But in their opinion, "Man can that guy shoot!" ROLF!

So much actually IS cosmetic and perception. And those preceptions and cosmetics are now driving BOTH the anti-gun people and the naive pro-gun folks too. To them, the .223 and 9mm are the most deadly firearms every conceived in the history of earth!

The gun control debate reminds of the line from some movie, "from the school of the galactically retarded" people - sometimes on both sides of it.

In fact, the .223 is not the king of the hill, but way down near the bottom in lethality, and pistol grips, thumbhole stocks, muzzlebrakes etc do not make a firearm more deadly - but safer because of better control. Mass killers historically just spray bullets for which precision isn't a factor.
 
Last edited:
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

joko104 said:
Cosmetics are fun to play with. I'm an average skilled shooter at best. But do I have the firearms to suggest I am a real marksman. Such as my Weatherby .300 magnum with a custom match stainless steel barrel and very exotic wood thumbhole stock - a VERY long range precision rifle and a pointedly excellent scope - all I bought used (like nearly everything) taking advantage of the prices of such firearms falling as people rush to .223 and 9mm. I have quite a few firearms that suggest I am a very, very skilled marksmen. That Custom Weatherby with modifications new? About $12,000. I paid 1/10th that. Same for the Weatherby .257 magnum - only also fluted stainless custom match barrel, accubrake, and one of those super fine carved Weatherby stocks. And a very excellent engraved over-under Krieghoff shotgun - plus of course my tricked out MIA now with target stock and a nice day/night scope. Those Weatherby's have a very distinct report when fired!

So... to continue the imagry, I had gone on Ebay and bought a like-new old shooter's jacket and a bunch of vintage marksmen awards patches (had the Biker shop sew them on), plus a dozen or so firearms clubs and matches pins to put on my hat. By my garb, I've been winning shooting matches for at least 2 decade and across the South and Midwest. LOL!

Laid it out, plus spotter scope, at a range. Didn't fire many rounds, just checked to see if the scopes on the Weatherby's were still on the mark. I was shooting groupings no better than average, where with those 2 rifles 3 shots at only 100 yards in dead air should only have be all bu just 1 hole. Actually, 1 1/2 inch groupings was pretty crappy shooting!

Despite the actual reality, my wife reported overhearing a few guys inside the check-in building talking how no one would be fool enough to do the typical $1 a shot gambling the like to do with each other with me. Probably everyone of of them could out shoot me with their $500 Remingtons. "Man can that guy shot!" ROLF!

So much actual IS cosmetic and perception. And those preceptions and cosmetics are now driving BOTH the anti-gun people and the naive pro-gun folks too. To them, the .223 and 9mm are the most deadly firearms every conceived in the history of earth!

In fact, the .223 is not the king of the hill, but way down near the bottom in lethality, and pistol grips, thumbhole stocks, muzzlebrakes etc do not make a firearm more deadly - but safer because of better control. Mass killers historically just spray bullets for which precision isn't a factor.
Click to expand...

Heh!

I'm not a gun fetishist, but as a musician, I can appreciate the obsession with gear and the workmanship involved in creating a exception instrument. I have a custom guitar with somewhat elaborate inlay on it (tree branch and leaves on the fretboard, and a buddha on its' (exotic wood) body

And yeah, there's a lot of emotionalism on both sides of the gun issue, and with it comes a level of irrationality. That's why I think we should all take a deep breath and not freak anytime someone whispers the words "bayonet" or "pistol grip", etc
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

sangha said:
You have the right to care (or not) about whatever you want. However, there are people making claims that are demonstrably false, and I see nothing wrong with my pointig that out.

As far as pistol grips being effective, I doubt that anyone has scientifically determined this. However, the effectiveness of pistol grips is amply demonstrated by their wide usage by govt agencies that care not a whit about aesthetics. They arm their agents with rifles that have pistol grips for a reason, and that reason is not because it makes them look better or scarier.

And yes, I get what you're saying regarding the max eff range, but my point isn't the max eff range, it's about the dangerousness of a weapon and whether or not a pistol grip contributes to that. I don't believe the term "dangerousness" can be determined using one measure. The same goes for measuring accuracy. Different weapons are more suited for certain situations, and other weapons are more suited for thers. The dangerousness of a weapon is not determined by one measure, but by the capabilities o the weapon and the situations it's used in
Click to expand...

Government agencies use weapons with pistol grips yes. They also use weapons without pistol grips but we will ignore that for now. The fact that government agencies use weapons with pistol grips doesnt really mean anything. I would assume they use them for comfort knowing that they may have to hold the weapon at a ready position for long periods of time.

I dont think the how dangerous a weapon is can be determined using one measure either. But I wasnt trying to determine how dangerous a weapon is using that measure.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

sangha said:
Heh!

I'm not a gun fetishist, but as a musician, I can appreciate the obsession with gear and the workmanship involved in creating a exception instrument. I have a custom guitar with somewhat elaborate inlay on it (tree branch and leaves on the fretboard, and a buddha on its' (exotic wood) body

And yeah, there's a lot of emotionalism on both sides of the gun issue, and with it comes a level of irrationality. That's why I think we should all take a deep breath and not freak anytime someone whispers the words "bayonet" or "pistol grip", etc
Click to expand...

I can give you a "like" for that one.

There really are LOTS of people who are VERY MUCH into precision shooting and VERY MUCH into hunting. The overall aesthetics means MUCH to them.

That's why, in reality terms, the "debate" should be limited to "reality" issues. For example, magazine capacity is a reality issue. So is background checks. Whether non-violent felons should be restored gun rights is a legitimate issue. Whether doctors should be required to report psychological issues to authorities - those are other legitimate issues. Should schools be "gun-free" or should schools have armed security? What about Open-carry or concealed carry or no-carry?

The visual stuff like thumbhole stocks, pistol grips, muzzlebrakes - that's all just annoying PR that is counter productive because I do believe stray bullets are a far greater danger AND those elements actually really do matter greatly to hunters and target/precision shooters. LARGE caliber rifles are ALL bolt action, ARE hunting rifles (ammo too costly to play with) and MUST have a muzzlebrake - manufacturers won't even sell them without those part of the barrel itself or it'd break a shoulder and shove the scope back into the person's eye. BUT when hunting elk at 900 yards that's what you need and in brown bear country you better have one of those along because you could shot one all day long with a .223 - or rather the few seconds before the bear ripped you apart.

Would it bother you if the musician's union was lobbying to outlaw your instrument, declaring all musically instruments may no longer be made using wood and past wood instruments longer than so long or within various parameters were outlawed - including yours? It wouldn't ruin your life but it'd really piss you off about those control freaks.

Precision shooting - and that is becoming VERY popular - is like fine musicians. The difference between being "the best" and not the best is 1/10,000 difference. I wish the anti-gun people would get off the "cosmetics" and stick to the real issues, and pro-gun folks should do the same. Wanting them to give up thumbhole stocks and muzzlebreaks would be like demanding you have to give up one of the strings on your instrument.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

Omgitsme said:
Government agencies use weapons with pistol grips yes. They also use weapons without pistol grips but we will ignore that for now. The fact that government agencies use weapons with pistol grips doesnt really mean anything. I would assume they use them for comfort knowing that they may have to hold the weapon at a ready position for long periods of time.

I dont think the how dangerous a weapon is can be determined using one measure either. But I wasnt trying to determine how dangerous a weapon is using that measure.
Click to expand...

So pistols grips make it easier for a shooter to hold the weapon at the ready for a long period of time. Agreed!

Don't you think that might be useful to someone who intends on shooting up people for as long as he possibly can?
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

sangha said:
So pistols grips make it easier for a shooter to hold the weapon at the ready for a long period of time. Agreed!

Don't you think that might be useful to someone who intends on shooting up people for as long as he possibly can?
Click to expand...

No. Because they are going to bring the weapon up, take their shots, then lower the weapon and move on until they find new targets. Someone who is in the military, FBI, or what not may have to keep their rifle pointed down an ally or at a door for long periods of time. That is the difference.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

joko104 said:
I can give you a "like" for that one.

There really are LOTS of people who are VERY MUCH into precision shooting and VERY MUCH into hunting. The overall aesthetics means MUCH to them.

That's why, in reality terms, the "debate" should be limited to "reality" issues. For example, magazine capacity is a reality issue. So is background checks. Whether non-violent felons should be restored gun rights is a legitimate issue. Whether doctors should be required to report psychological issues to authorities - those are other legitimate issues. Should schools be "gun-free" or should schools have armed security? What about Open-carry or concealed carry or no-carry?

The visual stuff like thumbhole stocks, pistol grips, muzzlebrakes - that's all just annoying PR that is counter productive because I do believe stray bullets are a far greater danger AND those elements actually really do matter greatly to hunters and target/precision shooters. LARGE caliber rifles are ALL bolt action, ARE hunting rifles (ammo too costly to play with) and MUST have a muzzlebrake - manufacturers won't even sell them without those part of the barrel itself or it'd break a shoulder and shove the scope back into the person's eye. BUT when hunting elk at 900 yards that's what you need and in brown bear country you better have one of those along because you could shot one all day long with a .223 - or rather the few seconds before the bear ripped you apart.

Would it bother you if the musician's union was lobbying to outlaw your instrument, declaring all musically instruments may no longer be made using wood and past wood instruments longer than so long or within various parameters were outlawed - including yours? It wouldn't ruin your life but it'd really piss you off about those control freaks.

Precision shooting - and that is becoming VERY popular - is like fine musicians. The difference between being "the best" and not the best is 1/10,000 difference. I wish the anti-gun people would get off the "cosmetics" and stick to the real issues, and pro-gun folks should do the same. Wanting them to give up thumbhole stocks and muzzlebreaks would be like demanding you have to give up one of the strings on your instrument.
Click to expand...

And I liked your post, not because I agreed with you but because you're demonstrating reason and not making accusations.

As far as banning musical instruments, I don't think that's a realistic comparison. I know some people think the music I make is ghastly, but it's never killed anyone (yet)

However, I think you are "begging the question" when it comes to the "cosmetics". We're here discussing whether those features do or do not make a weapon more dangerous in the hands of a lunatic or a criminal. Just declaring that they are not is just a short circuiting of the debate, and will not do anyone any good. Particularly with regards to an issue where many, and probably most, people already have their minds made up.

I think it's obvious that many on the right are concerned that the public support for gun safety laws will result in additional restictions being placed on gun ownership. What do you think would be a more effective way of countering that sentiment - a sane and sober discussion of the various features (what they are, what they do, how they can be used) or strident declarations that "THEY'RE PURELY COSMETIC!!" followed with insults directed at anyone who disagrees with that assertion?

Remember, a lot of people believe that people who like guns are nuts to begin with. Do you think the more strident talk is going to make them see your side as more rational, or will it enhance their perception of gun owners as being a crowd of hysterical loons?
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

Omgitsme said:
No. Because they are going to bring the weapon up, take their shots, then lower the weapon and move on until they find new targets. Someone who is in the military, FBI, or what not may have to keep their rifle pointed down an ally or at a door for long periods of time. That is the difference.
Click to expand...

So you don't think a mass shooter would not want to keep his weapon at the ready throughout his shooting spree?

I think that is an unreasonable assumption
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

sangha said:
So pistols grips make it easier for a shooter to hold the weapon at the ready for a long period of time. Agreed!

Don't you think that might be useful to someone who intends on shooting up people for as long as he possibly can?
Click to expand...

Pistol grips on rifles and shotguns change the axis of recoil. Standard stocks are as comfortable to hold "at the ready" as something like an M-16 or an MP5. If they weren't, we wouldn't have used them in every war prior to Vietnam.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

Surtr said:
Pistol grips on rifles and shotguns change the axis of recoil. Standard stocks are as comfortable to hold "at the ready" as something like an M-16 or an MP5. If they weren't, we wouldn't have used them in every war prior to Vietnam.
Click to expand...

Could you tell us more about the change in the axis of recoil? Is it desireable? Why, or why not?
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

sangha said:
So you don't think a mass shooter would not want to keep his weapon at the ready throughout his shooting spree?

I think that is an unreasonable assumption
Click to expand...

No. Why would they need too/want too?
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

sangha said:
Because they could come upon a potential victim at any moment
Click to expand...

And? Whats that victim going to do in the split second it takes to raise the weapon?
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

sangha said:
Could you tell us more about the change in the axis of recoil? Is it desireable? Why, or why not?
Click to expand...

The concept is to push the firearm straight back into the shoulder pocket to reduce muzzle climb. I personally haven't noticed a significant difference in muzzle climb between either configuration. After firing an AR-15, followed by a Ruger Mini-14, the only change in target acquisition was due to the different sights. In a 12 gauge shotgun it wouldn't be desirable at all, since it would put more pressure and force into the shoulder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom