• 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?

I'm hosting a pool for how many posts it takes CLAX to do the thread equivalent of putting a gun in his mouth and pulling the trigger to save himself the pain of further banter with sangha.

Payoff is 5:1.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

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.

that is stupid. some of those features make the weapons more suitable for several users-such as the adjustable stock on the AR 15 or M4. and how many criminals have ever put a bayonet on a rifle? a pistol grip doesn't make the weapon more deadly but easier to shoot with one hand or off a BIPOD IN FULL AUTO

how many killers use a bipod
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

I think people tend to be less careful with pistol's. People with assault rifles tend respect them more. I don't think as many accidents happen with "assault" weapons as they do pistols.

its much harder to accidentally shoot yourself with a rifle as opposed to a pistol due to the length
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

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

the failure is claiming that certain features that make a weapon more useful to the military also makes it more Dangerous

that is stupid. commonality of parts is extremely useful for the military and its armorers. has no relationship to dangerousness, same with bayonet lugs, adjustable stocks (soldiers come in all sizes) etc
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

This is really why the whole "assault weapons ban" confuses me. If someone walks in Walmart with an M4 I will notice it right away and will take cover. If they come in with a handgun I will not know it until they choose to pull it out.

It is harder to conceal which in my mind makes it less dangerous. The fact that semi automatic rifles contribute to significantly less deaths than handguns confirms this.

It depends what your intentions are. If you want to hold up a gas station, pistol is just fine, range will be close, conceal-ability is important.

On the other hand, if I was going to show up at Times Square on new years eve and do some damage, I would pick an ar 15 with a 90 round drum magazine. If you want to go up in a building (stand off a way from your intended target) then you don't want a pistol, you want a rife and a few 90 round drum mags. Like the one just below:
Mag AR-15 Drum 90 Round MWG Clear Plastic Includes Stripper Clips and Loader

The Beltway sniper in 2002 used an ar 15 fired by an accomplice from a trunk of a car, and they were darned hard to spot, locate and apprehend. If they had cooled it instead of killing so regularly, they could have kept it up for quite a while. With a pistol, you normally don't get to stand off that far, due to the pistol being less accurate at longer ranges than the ar 15.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks

I consider the ar 15 with 90 round drum to be far more dangerous if your objective is to go out and kill a lot of people, especially if you don't want to be detected on the first killing, kill a little from a standoff, and leave that hidden location and come back to kill another day. That is more of a war model, and not a practical theft model, which is the only reason that pistols kill more folks than assault rifles in peacetime USA.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

Those list of weapons were prohibited by name only in the brady assault weapons ban. AK47s became Mak90s, tech-22 pistols became sport-22 pistols and the same thing with other listed weapons and they passed the features test.

Speed up to about 8 and half minutes in the video.
What Assault Weapons Ban? - 60 Minutes - CBS News

You're right. I should said it banned the manufacture of the weapons it banned



Cosmetic doesn't mean mean useless either.

True, but "only cosmetic" or "purely cosmetic" does
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

Then you use a far more narrow definition of more or less dangerous than the average person does.

No, I did not use a more narrow definition. My point was that there could be several definitions depending on how dangerous was defined vis a vis firearms.

If dangerous is defined as "killed more people" then handguns are obviously more dangerous

If it's defined as "used in the killings with the most fatalities", then it's not handguns
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

I'm hosting a pool for how many posts it takes CLAX to do the thread equivalent of putting a gun in his mouth and pulling the trigger to save himself the pain of further banter with sangha.

Payoff is 5:1.

I think the trigger has already been pulled
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

It depends what your intentions are. If you want to hold up a gas station, pistol is just fine, range will be close, conceal-ability is important.

On the other hand, if I was going to show up at Times Square on new years eve and do some damage, I would pick an ar 15 with a 90 round drum magazine. If you want to go up in a building (stand off a way from your intended target) then you don't want a pistol, you want a rife and a few 90 round drum mags. Like the one just below:
Mag AR-15 Drum 90 Round MWG Clear Plastic Includes Stripper Clips and Loader

The Beltway sniper in 2002 used an ar 15 fired by an accomplice from a trunk of a car, and they were darned hard to spot, locate and apprehend. If they had cooled it instead of killing so regularly, they could have kept it up for quite a while. With a pistol, you normally don't get to stand off that far, due to the pistol being less accurate at longer ranges than the ar 15.
Beltway sniper attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I consider the ar 15 with 90 round drum to be far more dangerous if your objective is to go out and kill a lot of people, especially if you don't want to be detected on the first killing, kill a little from a standoff, and leave that hidden location and come back to kill another day. That is more of a war model, and not a practical theft model, which is the only reason that pistols kill more folks than assault rifles in peacetime USA.


Number of murders in 2011 by weapon type:
"Assault Rifles":323
Handguns: 6,220

fistfights:745
knife:1704
other non-gun weapons (bats, clubs, etc):1772

As you can see of every type of weapon "Assault Rifles" were used the least and by a significant margin.

They may be capable of doing alot of damage in the wrong hands but obviously the drawbacks of using them are enough that they contribute minimally to the overall ammount of murders.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

that is stupid. some of those features make the weapons more suitable for several users-such as the adjustable stock on the AR 15 or M4. and how many criminals have ever put a bayonet on a rifle? a pistol grip doesn't make the weapon more deadly but easier to shoot with one hand or off a BIPOD IN FULL AUTO

how many killers use a bipod

We've been through this before, Turtle.

Of course some features are of little use to a demented mass killer. But that doesn't change the fact that those features are more than cosmetic.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

the failure is claiming that certain features that make a weapon more useful to the military also makes it more Dangerous

that is stupid. commonality of parts is extremely useful for the military and its armorers. has no relationship to dangerousness, same with bayonet lugs, adjustable stocks (soldiers come in all sizes) etc

We've been through this before, Turtle.

Cosmetic doesn't mean "more dangerous", particularly if we're talking about mass shooters. However, that doesn't mean that the feature is "purely" or "only" cosmetic.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

Number of murders in 2011 by weapon type:
"Assault Rifles":323
Handguns: 6,220

fistfights:745
knife:1704
other non-gun weapons (bats, clubs, etc):1772

As you can see of every type of weapon "Assault Rifles" were used the least and by a significant margin.

They may be capable of doing alot of damage in the wrong hands but obviously the drawbacks of using them are enough that they contribute minimally to the overall ammount of murders.

That is not a function of lethality, it is a function of practical day to day needs. Pistols are used in robbery, which is a daily crime in america. The true intent to murder lots of people is a rare occurrence performed by sick people. It is the intent of the person that accounts for more murders with handguns, not the lethality of the weapon. If a person wanted to commit a truly mass murder, he would conceal himself with an assault rifle. If you didn't have an assault rifle, which is clearly a better choice, you could use a bolt action if necessary and do quite a lot of damage, like the tower killer on the Univ. of Tx. campus in the 60's, the first mass killer that I remember.
Charles Whitman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

We've been through this before, Turtle.

Of course some features are of little use to a demented mass killer. But that doesn't change the fact that those features are more than cosmetic.

they are "cosmetic" in the sense that they do not increase the "dangerousness" of the weapon or make it more suitable for criminal enterprise
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

they are "cosmetic" in the sense that they do not increase the "dangerousness" of the weapon or make it more suitable for criminal enterprise

We've been through this before, Turtle

"cosmetic" does not mean "doesn't increase the dangerousness", and even you agreed that some of the features that others describe as "only cosmetic" are in fact useful to a mass shooter (ex pistol grip), though not as useful as it is to a soldier in combat
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

"reduces recoil" is functional; not cosmetic

On some firearms it is. On others it is not.

I have not read any other person than you who wants laws passed to make firearms less accurate. And, as I noted, what you MOST want is to outlaw precision target rifles (such as the Olympics teams use) and bolt action hunting rifles.

A .223 Bullpup without a muzzlebrake is a better interior people-killer than a .223 with one because without it is shorter and more easily concealed. So you also WANT laws to make firearms more easily concealable.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

If sangha says the C word one more time, I'm gonna go punch an Avon lady.

Why are mods letting him derail this thread?
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

We've been through this before, Turtle

"cosmetic" does not mean "doesn't increase the dangerousness", and even you agreed that some of the features that others describe as "only cosmetic" are in fact useful to a mass shooter (ex pistol grip), though not as useful as it is to a soldier in combat


You've spun off hung up on the word "cosmetic" and it's just making your messages stupid. Really.

I don't understand why the gun-control crowd doesn't stick with such as high capacity magazines to ban, rather than going after items that are for precision shooting (target) and hunting. All that does is round up the greatest possible number of opponents to gun control and makes all the talk about "shotguns for home defense" and "hunters will still have hunting rifles" a huge lie - and millions of people - unlike you - do understand the difference.

But you also reveal yourself. You truly do not care about function or lives. You just want guns to LOOK nice, even if more deadly.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

I'm not the one who is hung up on the word cosmetic. The people who are hung up on the word are the rightwing gunnies who dishonestly claim that certain functional features are "only cosmetic"
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

Obviously I am pro-gun rights, but a rifle is more deadly than a pistol of equal caliber inherently for bullet velocity, plus a rifle is easier to impulse aim. However, pistols and revolvers (there is a difference) are responsible for most murders because they are concealable. Rifles generally are not concealable.


I suspect that among civilians, cheap little .22 6 shot revolvers and .25 7 shot semi-auto Saturday specials have been used in more murders than any other firearm because they are cheap and easy to hide - only they tend to kill slowly.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

I'm not the one who is hung up on the word cosmetic. The people who are hung up on the word are the rightwing gunnies who dishonestly claim that certain functional features are "only cosmetic"

No, that's all in your head. Anyone who actually understands firearms recognized the exact differences. The difference between a wood stock and a black fiberglass stock and an aluminum stock are for the most part "cosmetic." However, circumstantially, typical climate, humidity and temperature factors may cause one to be a better choice. Often, cost is the decisive factor - for both the military and civilians.

But the other reason you should give-this-up about "cosmetics" is it has you arguing for inaccurate firearms that people can control - and trying to force people away from target and hunting rifles towards higher capacity semi-autos.

You know what firearm you are MOST raging against? Extreme precision, single shot .22 target rifles that have pistol grips, thumbhole stocks and muzzlebrakes. That also is THE rifle LEAST capable of "mass killing" as it is a slow loading heavy single shot tiny caliber.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

On some firearms it is. On others it is not.

I have not read any other person than you who wants laws passed to make firearms less accurate. And, as I noted, what you MOST want is to outlaw precision target rifles (such as the Olympics teams use) and bolt action hunting rifles.

A .223 Bullpup without a muzzlebrake is a better interior people-killer than a .223 with one because without it is shorter and more easily concealed. So you also WANT laws to make firearms more easily concealable.

Quite right, the flash suppressor on my 22 rifle is PURELY cosmetic, there is no flash from a .22LR mini mag out of a rifle.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

No, that's all in your head. Anyone who actually understands firearms recognized the exact differences. The difference between a wood stock and a black fiberglass stock and an aluminum stock are for the most part "cosmetic." However, circumstantially, typical climate, humidity and temperature factors may cause one to be a better choice. Often, cost is the decisive factor - for both the military and civilians.

But the other reason you should give-this-up about "cosmetics" is it has you arguing for inaccurate firearms that people can control - and trying to force people away from target and hunting rifles towards higher capacity semi-autos.

You know what firearm you are MOST raging against? Extreme precision, single shot .22 target rifles that have pistol grips, thumbhole stocks and muzzlebrakes. That also is THE rifle LEAST capable of "mass killing" as it is a slow loading heavy single shot tiny caliber.

"for the most part cosmetic", "to be the better choice", etc all prove that the claim that these features are "purely cosmetic" is false.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

Being that pistols are far more likely to be used in crime

Since a pistol can be an assault weapon your question contradicts itself.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

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.

There is plenty of ignorance on both sides of this debate.

A telescoping stock allows a custom fit for the user and doesn't provide a much smaller package; a rifle with a telescoping stock may save four inches in overall length while collapses, which does not suddenly make a rifle "concealable." A folding stock might save seven or eight inches, and again doesn't magically make an eight pound hunk of metal with a twenty inch barrel "concealable."

Pistol grips do not make a rifle fire faster nor service targets faster. If that were the case, competition trap and skeet shooters would use pistol grips as their sport involves rapidly changing aim; they do not use pistol grips. The greatest advantage a pistol grip confers is to shorten the overall length of a rifle by maybe two inches, while offering some adjustability for length of pull. Even so, if you combine a pistol grip with a folding stock (in the folded position), you are looking at maybe ten inches shorter overall length (and the rifle is not in a usable configuration when the stock is folded).

Barrel shrouds are designed to keep the user from burning their hands, nothing more, nothing less. Some shrouds come with rails to mount accessories, such as flash lights, night vision scopes, laser designators, etc... none of which make a rifle deadlier or easier to shoot.

The arbitrary number of five or seven rounds for a detachable magazine is just that - arbitrary. A magazine change can be performed in less than a second. I can do one in about a second, and I don't have anything in the way of formal training for rapid reloads. A second is not enough time to rush an attacker, especially not from a position of cover that someone would be in if actively being shot at (and not being armed themselves). If you want to eliminate the advantages of a thirty round magazine... then you have to outlaw any magazine, of any capacity. And that is an entirely different debate, one that will not pass the public sniff test.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

There is plenty of ignorance on both sides of this debate.

A telescoping stock allows a custom fit for the user and doesn't provide a much smaller package; a rifle with a telescoping stock may save four inches in overall length while collapses, which does not suddenly make a rifle "concealable." A folding stock might save seven or eight inches, and again doesn't magically make an eight pound hunk of metal with a twenty inch barrel "concealable."

Pistol grips do not make a rifle fire faster nor service targets faster. If that were the case, competition trap and skeet shooters would use pistol grips as their sport involves rapidly changing aim; they do not use pistol grips. The greatest advantage a pistol grip confers is to shorten the overall length of a rifle by maybe two inches, while offering some adjustability for length of pull. Even so, if you combine a pistol grip with a folding stock (in the folded position), you are looking at maybe ten inches shorter overall length (and the rifle is not in a usable configuration when the stock is folded).

Barrel shrouds are designed to keep the user from burning their hands, nothing more, nothing less. Some shrouds come with rails to mount accessories, such as flash lights, night vision scopes, laser designators, etc... none of which make a rifle deadlier or easier to shoot.

The arbitrary number of five or seven rounds for a detachable magazine is just that - arbitrary. A magazine change can be performed in less than a second. I can do one in about a second, and I don't have anything in the way of formal training for rapid reloads. A second is not enough time to rush an attacker, especially not from a position of cover that someone would be in if actively being shot at (and not being armed themselves). If you want to eliminate the advantages of a thirty round magazine... then you have to outlaw any magazine, of any capacity. And that is an entirely different debate, one that will not pass the public sniff test.

I have a suspicion that you intended on refuting my claim but everything you said supports my claim that those features have a function and are not purely cosmetic
 
Back
Top Bottom