- Joined
- Jul 1, 2011
- Messages
- 67,218
- Reaction score
- 28,530
- Location
- Lower Hudson Valley, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?
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
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.
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