• 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?

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...

unless those features cause a person to go mad and murder massive amounts of people I don't see what the point is been outlawing them.
 
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...

so why make it illegal? it's just an ordinary rifle.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

sangha said:
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.
Click to expand...

They are cosmetic. They do not make a firearm any more or less dangerous than one without those features. They do not make mass murderers better shooters. And judging by your extreme ignorance on the subject of firearms those features are not going to make you a better shooter.
 
Last edited:
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

sangha said:
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
Click to expand...



Now you lie. I NEVER said the features I discussed were merely cosmetic, other than commenting as I did after this in the message above.

Rather, you are running (again) into outer space trying to justify foolish statements as now you claim:

1. You completely don't care what makes firearms more deadly
2. You want civilians to shoot inaccurately
3. You want civilians to have little control over their firearm when shooting.

Rather, you just want to argue "cosmetics."


A .223 is a "cosmetic" and inferior similarity to a NATO 5.56. As another example of being "cosmetic." And another example of why the anti-gunners debate irrationally. You have to claim you don't care about deadliness, accuracy or firearm control to maintain your claim - thus making your 'gun control" issues nonsensical.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

joko104 said:
A lot of stuff civilians put on their firearms are purely cosmetic. A muzzlebrake on a shotgun is only cosmetic as a common example.
Click to expand...

joko104 said:
a muzzlebrake reduces recoil.
Click to expand...


"reduces recoil" is functional; not cosmetic
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

CLAX1911 said:
unless those features cause a person to go mad and murder massive amounts of people I don't see what the point is been outlawing them.
Click to expand...

I said nothing about a feature causing a person to go mad. I merely pointed out that saying those features were "purely cosmetic" was both untrue and ignorant
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

jamesrage said:
They are cosmetic. They do not make a firearm any more or less dangerous than one without those features. They do not make mass murderers better shooters. And judging by your extreme ignorance on the subject of firearms those features are not going to make you a better shooter.
Click to expand...

Functional does not mean "makes it more dangerous"

You are still failing.

Cosmetic | Define Cosmetic at Dictionary.com
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

sangha said:
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
Click to expand...

In the commission of domestic crime they are no more dangerous.

I am done with you.

Good day.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

sangha said:
No, I'm not talking "in general". I quite specifically stated that I was talking about individual crimes with the greatest # of gun fatalities,
Click to expand...

Why are you only talking about that. It's not the question that the OP asked.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

joko104 said:
Now you lie. I NEVER said the features I discussed were merely cosmetic, other than commenting as I did after this in the message above.

Rather, you are running (again) into outer space trying to justify foolish statements as now you claim:

1. You completely don't care what makes firearms more deadly
2. You want civilians to shoot inaccurately
3. You want civilians to have little control over their firearm when shooting.

Rather, you just want to argue "cosmetics."


A .223 is a "cosmetic" and inferior similarity to a NATO 5.56. As another example of being "cosmetic." And another example of why the anti-gunners debate irrationally. You have to claim you don't care about deadliness, accuracy or firearm control to maintain your claim - thus making your 'gun control" issues nonsensical.
Click to expand...

I am not the one that ignorantly claimd that certain features were purely cosmetic. It's the rightwing gun nuts that want to dishonestly argue that these features are purely cosmetic.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

Going by the thread title, what kind of pistols are we talking about? According to the BATF, and their wildly nonsensical categorizations, this is a pistol:

nfa-pistol.jpg
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

sangha said:
I am not the one that ignorantly claimd that certain features were purely cosmetic. It's the rightwing gun nuts that want to dishonestly argue that these features are purely cosmetic.
Click to expand...

cosmetic or not what difference does it make?
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

sangha said:
I'm not surprised to see that you're not concerned about the facts.
Click to expand...

what facts? you're not talking about anything

you're just ranting and raving about something someone said, as I said before, nothing.

make a point or find another thread.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

sangha said:
When it comes to refuting my post, you've got nothing

I accept your surrender too
Click to expand...

surrender to what you haven't said anything. just stupidity, about the future having a function or not.

make a point or shut up, enjoy your ego stroking, you made a pointless statement congratulations I concede to your pointlessness
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

Surtr said:
Going by the thread title, what kind of pistols are we talking about? According to the BATF, and their wildly nonsensical categorizations, this is a pistol:

View attachment 67142865
Click to expand...

short barrel no stock that's a pistol.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

sangha said:
I am not the one that ignorantly claimd that certain features were purely cosmetic. It's the rightwing gun nuts that want to dishonestly argue that these features are purely cosmetic.
Click to expand...

you're the one ignorantly carrying on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about nothing that no one said.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

CLAX1911 said:
you're the one ignorantly carrying on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about nothing that no one said.
Click to expand...

No, no one has said that some features were purely cosmetic :roll:

joko104 said:
A lot of stuff civilians put on their firearms are purely cosmetic. A muzzlebrake on a shotgun is only cosmetic as a common example.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

sangha said:
When it comes to refuting my post, you've got nothing

I accept your surrender too
Click to expand...

You proved that you don't understand context

They are cosmetic. They do not make a firearm any more or less dangerous than one without those features. They do not make mass murderers better shooters. And judging by your extreme ignorance on the subject of firearms those features are not going to make you a better shooter.
Click to expand...
congratulations, you completely missed the point of this statement because you so desperately want to be right you didn't understand what it was saying.

I bestow upon you the award of complete jackassery, for completely missing the point and getting totally hung up in semantics. maybe you should quit posting to keep from appearing ignorant.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

sangha said:
No, no one has said that some features were purely cosmetic :roll:
Click to expand...

on a shotgun it is, it's a short range weapon, it has little recoil, muzzle flash isn't a concern. sorry his statement is accurate. you know nothing get out of this forum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom