• 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?

sangha said:
In other words, the fact that flash suppresors help with recoil means "they're purely cosmetic". The fact that bayonets are used means "they are purely cosmetic". The fact that these weapons are used because of their "ability to withstand harsh conditions, weight," and "durability " means that they are "purely cosmetic"

Gotcha!! :lamo
Click to expand...

How is a semiautomatic ak47 more dangerous than a norinco mak 90?
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

sangha said:
It's funny when the pro-gunnies demonstrate an ignorance of firearms.

Those "cosmetic" features are all functional, which is why the military buys weapons with those features. I don't know what type of delusion leads some people to think the military buys weapons because of their
"cosmetic" value.
Click to expand...

Flash suppressor is better for low light shooting only. Folding or telescoping (adjustable) stock may aid in concealment and may allow shorter/taller shooters to better controll the same gun. Forward pistol grip and/or barrel heat shield may allow for better control in extremely rapid firing situations. Other features such as accessory rails have no affect on the shooting rate at all, but may allow added ease of target acquisition (scope, laser or flashlight). I have yet to hear of a mass shooter using the bayonette lug, but that sure is a scary feature too. The detachable magazine alone is did not define a gun as an AW, but we will soon see.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

sangha said:
Try listing gun homicides by the number of people killed.
Click to expand...

CA has some of the stricter gun laws correct? Well here are there not to impressive stats from 2009.

Lets look at what really matters....

Handgun:
All Crimes 81.6%
Other than homicides 75.4%
Drug trafficking 92%
Street Gang 83.3%
Homicides 75%


Rfile:
All Crime 8.8%
Other than homicide 13.9%
Drug trafficking 4%
Street Gang 0% <------ Important
Homicides 9%

http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/publications/Firearms_Report_09.pdf

Rifle includes ALL rifles not just assault rifles. So why do your numbers matter again?

Nationwide looks much worse for people such as your self being scared of scary looking rifles.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

sangha said:
In other words, the fact that flash suppresors help with recoil means "they're purely cosmetic". The fact that bayonets are used means "they are purely cosmetic". The fact that these weapons are used because of their "ability to withstand harsh conditions, weight," and "durability " means that they are "purely cosmetic"

Gotcha!! :lamo
Click to expand...

When taken out of context "which you seem to do... allot" you are completely wrong. None of the cosmetic military adaptations on rifles are a factor in crime, period.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

Black Manta said:
CA has some of the stricter gun laws correct? Well here are there not to impressive stats from 2009.

Lets look at what really matters....

Handgun:
All Crimes 81.6%
Other than homicides 75.4%
Drug trafficking 92%
Street Gang 83.3%
Homicides 75%


Rfile:
All Crime 8.8%
Other than homicide 13.9%
Drug trafficking 4%
Street Gang 0% <------ Important
Homicides 9%

http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/publications/Firearms_Report_09.pdf

Rifle includes ALL rifles not just assault rifles. So why do your numbers matter again?

Nationwide looks much worse for people such as your self being scared of scary looking rifles.
Click to expand...

My #'s matter because they show that in certain situations, historically speaking, AW's have been more dangerous than pistols, which is directly relevant to the question asked in the OP
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

More dangerous to who? Under what circumstances? Who is wielding the pistol or assault rifle?
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

Black Manta said:
When taken out of context "which you seem to do... allot" you are completely wrong. None of the cosmetic military adaptations on rifles are a factor in crime, period.
Click to expand...

I said nothing about crime. I merely pointed out that the claim that those features are "purely cosmetic" was both incorrect and stupid.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

molten_dragon said:
More dangerous to who? Under what circumstances? Who is wielding the pistol or assault rifle?
Click to expand...

The people who were killed

The circumstances involving the crimes with the greatest # of gun fatalities

No, in those cases, the perp often offs himself, surrenders, or is subdued
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

sangha said:
Try listing gun homicides by the number of people killed.
Click to expand...
Or try listing gun homicides by the number of people killed per gun in the U.S.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

Pistol grips are generally for 2 functions: 1.) Accuracy in super precision shooting. The USA and other Olympics teams use thumb grip .22s. 2.) Control - such as is common in home defense inexpensive pump shotguns.

Flash diverters/muzzlebrakes are mostly just cosmetic in smaller calibers - and an ABSOLUTE MUST in big game calibers. Weatherbys - for example - which solely are bolt action hunting rifles generally holding 5 or less cartridges - come with a muzzlebrake for all calibers of 30-378 and higher because without one they can break a shoulder or damage a person's eye by the scope - as a muzzlebrake reduces recoil.

In short, outlawing muzzlebrakes is an attack against hunters and target shooters, not mass killers. The attack against pistol grips is an attempt to outlaw home defense typically 5-6 shell pump shotguns.

These proposed laws are about hatred of hunters, target shooters and specifically-for-home-defense shotguns. SO... every time you read an anti-gun person say "people can just have shotguns for home defense" know they are ALWAYS lying. They want home defense shotguns, hunting rifles and target rifles outlawed - and at the top of their list.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

sangha said:
I said nothing about crime. I merely pointed out that the claim that those features are "purely cosmetic" was both incorrect and stupid.
Click to expand...

On a civilian rifle they are cosmetic as in they look even if they do not preform like the military version. Please stop dancing around.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

celticwar17 said:
Or try listing gun homicides by the number of people killed per gun in the U.S.
Click to expand...


Or list the 500,000 people per year who scared of (didn't even shoot) home invaders each year with a firearm!
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

sangha said:
i said nothing about the relative dangers of any weapon
Click to expand...
You are arguing that those cosmetic features matter. Both of those weapons I listed are the same weapon. They do however has certain cosmetic differences.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

sangha said:
The people who were killed

The circumstances involving the crimes with the greatest # of gun fatalities
Click to expand...

Which people who were killed? Are we just talking in general? Because if so, the number of people killed each year by handguns vastly outnumbers the people killed each year by 'assault' weapons.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

joko104 said:
Pistol grips are generally for 2 functions: 1.) Accuracy in super precision shooting. The USA and other Olympics teams use thumb grip .22s. 2.) Control - such as is common in home defense inexpensive pump shotguns.

Flash diverters/muzzlebrakes are mostly just cosmetic in smaller calibers - and an ABSOLUTE MUST in big game calibers. Weatherbys - for example - which solely are bolt action hunting rifles generally holding 5 or less cartridges - come with a muzzlebrake for all calibers of 30-378 and higher because without one they can break a shoulder or damage a person's eye by the scope - as a muzzlebrake reduces recoil.

In short, outlawing muzzlebrakes is an attack against hunters and target shooters, not mass killers. The attack against pistol grips is an attempt to outlaw home defense typically 5-6 shell pump shotguns.

These proposed laws are about hatred of hunters, target shooters and specifically-for-home-defense shotguns. SO... every time you read an anti-gun person say "people can just have shotguns for home defense" know they are ALWAYS lying. They want home defense shotguns, hunting rifles and target rifles outlawed - and at the top of their list.
Click to expand...

IOW, those features have a function, and are not "purely cosmetic"

That's exactly what I said
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

sangha said:
It's funny when the pro-gunnies demonstrate an ignorance of firearms.

Those "cosmetic" features are all functional, which is why the military buys weapons with those features. I don't know what type of delusion leads some people to think the military buys weapons because of their
"cosmetic" value.
Click to expand...

but those features don't affect the deadliness of a gun. a flash suppressor doesn't make the gun more deadly, nor does a collapsible stock, or a pistol grip,
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

Black Manta said:
On a civilian rifle they are cosmetic as in they look even if they do not preform like the military version. Please stop dancing around.
Click to expand...

Those features perform a function no matter what the setting. A pistol grip does not suddenly fail to provide better control and accuracy simply because someone is using it in a civilian setting.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

pix687410567.jpg



A 100 year old design. At close range up to about 100 yards, I would rate this 45ACP Thompson as 300% to 500% more "deadly" than .223 with a 30 round magazine.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

jamesrage said:
You are arguing that those cosmetic features matter. Both of those weapons I listed are the same weapon. They do however has certain cosmetic differences.
Click to expand...

Please quote where I said "cosmetic features matter"

What I am arguing, and arguing both explicitely and clearly, is that the features mentioned are not "purely cosmetic" because they do serve a purpose.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

molten_dragon said:
Which people who were killed? Are we just talking in general? Because if so, the number of people killed each year by handguns vastly outnumbers the people killed each year by 'assault' weapons.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not talking "in general". I quite specifically stated that I was talking about individual crimes with the greatest # of gun fatalities,
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

sangha said:
Those features perform a function no matter what the setting. A pistol grip does not suddenly fail to provide better control and accuracy simply because someone is using it in a civilian setting.
Click to expand...


So let's put this on record - you WANT civilians to not be able to shoot accurately. EVERYONE REMEMBER THAT next time we see anti-gunners claiming civilians will be firing inaccurately and hitting the wrong person.

SANGHA WANTS CIVILIAN FIREARMS TO BE INACCURATE AND DIFFICULT TO CONTROL. :roll:
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

CLAX1911 said:
but those features don't affect the deadliness of a gun. a flash suppressor doesn't make the gun more deadly, nor does a collapsible stock, or a pistol grip,
Click to expand...

I said nothing about the "deadliness of a gun". I merely pointed out that some features were not "purely cosmetic" as some ignorantly claim
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

joko104 said:
So let's put this on record - you WANT civilians to not be able to shoot accurately. EVERYONE REMEMBER THAT next time we see anti-gunners claiming civilians will be firing inaccurately and hitting the wrong person. SANGHA WANTS CIVILIAN FIREARMS TO BE INACCURATE AND DIFFICULT TO CONTROL.
:roll:
Click to expand...

I said nothing about what I want civilians to be able to do

Face it! You got pwned. You argued that some features are "purely cosmetic" even though you know that they have a function.

Now that you have proven me right, you're trying to bait me into some other issue in order to distract attention away from your pwnage.

Your efforts will FAIL as hard as your argument that those features are purely cosmetic did
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

sangha said:
I said nothing about the "deadliness of a gun". I merely pointed out that some features were not "purely cosmetic" as some ignorantly claim
Click to expand...

A lot of stuff civilians put on their firearms are purely cosmetic. A muzzlebrake on a shotgun is only cosmetic as a common example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom