• 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:
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
Click to expand...

Their function is not what the media reports as "dangerous," however. I actually heard Alan Colmes claim that folding stocks and pistol grips make guns fire faster. That is just plain ignorant.

A folded stock and a pistol grip turns a 36 inch rifle into a 28 inch rifle that cannot be fired accurately and still isn't concealable. That's like outlawing cars that can go over 200 mph for safety reasons, even though the speed limit is already set well below that.

The ONLY point anti-gun rhetoric can score is on the point of magazines, and they are stopping that debate at an arbitrary number that is nothing more than an empty gesture. If they want to forward the debate that magazines themselves should be outlawed, then lets have that debate. Until then, all of these measures are just designed to enact control for the sake of control, not to actually address any of the problems that the anti-gun side sees in the issue.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

At this link there is some great information on assault weapons:

The Truth About Assault Weapons
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

THIS is on Sangha's to-be-outlawed list:


bild.php5


^ A single shot .22 competition target rifle because it has thumbhole stock and pistol grip. It fires and holds ONE .22 shell. But to Sangha, this is a mass murder's terror weapon.


However, THIS is NOT on Sangha's list:

50tallpodsmall.jpg


^A Browning M3HB semi-auto converted belt fed 50 caliber. It does not have a thumbhole stock, does not have a pistol grip and does not have a muzzle brake. Nor does it have a magazine. It can fire over 250 rounds per minute over 1 mile thru over 1 inch steel and thru as many belts as a person cares to link.

NOR is THIS on his list:

pix317701544.jpg


A NATO .308 gatlin gun at 250 rounds per link as many links as a person puts together at around 700 rounds per minute (or any lesser rate as it is cranked) - BUT it does NOT have a magazine, does not have a pistol grip, does not have a thumbhole stock - AND COSTS LESS THAN THE .22 single shot competition target rifle.

In fact, by his messages he especially likes that beltfed .308 Browning because he opposes accuracy in firearms and it isn't very accurate (why they tend to use tracer bullets mixed in) and instead is for throwing out lots and lots of big bullets really extra fast! By his messages that's what he wants everyone to have in terms of long guns. And yes, one could be carried on and fired from a shoulder sling.

So beware of Olypiades with .22 single shot rifles - or so says Sangha. Maybe schools should be legally declared "Olympic Competitors Free-Zones" and it a felony for a competitive .22 shooter to go into any school.

THAT is how much Sangha in his messages REALLY does NOT care about mass killings and does NOT understand about firearms. He's just keep reciting the word "cosmetic" as if it means anything.
 
Last edited:
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

Gonzo Rodeo said:
Their function is not what the media reports as "dangerous," however. I actually heard Alan Colmes claim that folding stocks and pistol grips make guns fire faster. That is just plain ignorant.

A folded stock and a pistol grip turns a 36 inch rifle into a 28 inch rifle that cannot be fired accurately and still isn't concealable. That's like outlawing cars that can go over 200 mph for safety reasons, even though the speed limit is already set well below that.

The ONLY point anti-gun rhetoric can score is on the point of magazines, and they are stopping that debate at an arbitrary number that is nothing more than an empty gesture. If they want to forward the debate that magazines themselves should be outlawed, then lets have that debate. Until then, all of these measures are just designed to enact control for the sake of control, not to actually address any of the problems that the anti-gun side sees in the issue.
Click to expand...

Again, "cosmetic" does not mean "not dangerous"
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

sangha said:
Again, "cosmetic" does not mean "not dangerous"
Click to expand...

"Dangerous" is the given reason for their ban. And these features are clearly not dangerous. They do have function, and are not entirely cosmetic, but the functionality they add does not add to their danger. They are "dangerously cosmetic", in that they look like they are more lethal, when in fact they are not.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

Gonzo Rodeo said:
"Dangerous" is the given reason for their ban. And these features are clearly not dangerous. They do have function, and are not entirely cosmetic, but the functionality they add does not add to their danger. They are "dangerously cosmetic", in that they look like they are more lethal, when in fact they are not.
Click to expand...

I said nothing about whether they should be used as criteria for a ban. I merely pointed out that the claim that they were "only cosmetic" is false and ignorant
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

joko104 said:
THIS is on Sangha's to-be-outlawed list:


bild.php5


^ A single shot .22 competition target rifle because it has thumbhole stock and pistol grip. It fires and holds ONE .22 shell. But to Sangha, this is a mass murder's terror weapon.


However, THIS is NOT on Sangha's list:

50tallpodsmall.jpg


^A Browning M3HB semi-auto converted belt fed 50 caliber. It does not have a thumbhole stock, does not have a pistol grip and does not have a muzzle brake. Nor does it have a magazine. It can fire over 250 rounds per minute over 1 mile thru over 1 inch steel and thru as many belts as a person cares to link.

NOR is THIS on his list:

pix317701544.jpg


A NATO .308 gatlin gun at 250 rounds per link as many links as a person puts together at around 700 rounds per minute (or any lesser rate as it is cranked) - BUT it does NOT have a magazine, does not have a pistol grip, does not have a thumbhole stock - AND COSTS LESS THAN THE .22 single shot competition target rifle.

In fact, by his messages he especially likes that beltfed .308 Browning because he opposes accuracy in firearms and it isn't very accurate (why they tend to use tracer bullets mixed in) and instead is for throwing out lots and lots of big bullets really extra fast! By his messages that's what he wants everyone to have in terms of long guns. And yes, one could be carried on and fired from a shoulder sling.

So beware of Olypiades with .22 single shot rifles - or so says Sangha. Maybe schools should be legally declared "Olympic Competitors Free-Zones" and it a felony for a competitive .22 shooter to go into any school.

THAT is how much Sangha in his messages REALLY does NOT care about mass killings and does NOT understand about firearms. He's just keep reciting the word "cosmetic" as if it means anything.
Click to expand...

Of course sangha doesn't have a clue. The cosmetic nonsense was just a red herring.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

sangha said:
I said nothing about whether they should be used as criteria for a ban. I merely pointed out that the claim that they were "only cosmetic" is false and ignorant
Click to expand...

you've been saying that for 13 pages, we get it, shut up.

the ignorance I see is that you continue to beat this dead horse. everyone gets it, for the love of all that is good in this world SHUT UP!

make a point regarding the OP, or get off of this thread.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

sangha said:
I said nothing about whether they should be used as criteria for a ban. I merely pointed out that the claim that they were "only cosmetic" is false and ignorant
Click to expand...

So why should these features be banned?
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

sangha said:
I said nothing about whether they should be used as criteria for a ban. I merely pointed out that the claim that they were "only cosmetic" is false and ignorant
Click to expand...

we all understand that you think you outsmarted everyone with third grader word games.

aside from some features on a fire arm, what makes a weapon assault weapon?
please provide something of substance to the conversation. so far you have simply called everyone ignorant, and insulted everyone, this means 1 of 2 things, either you have nothing to add, or you have no thought.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

Gonzo Rodeo said:
So why should these features be banned?
Click to expand...

he doesn't know, he doesn't really have a position, he just wants to rant and rave about poor word choice. it's pointless arguing with this person.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

sangha said:
So it's your belief that bayonets and flash suppressors have no function at all and are purely cosmetic?

:lamo
Click to expand...

Of course they have a function, but they are not the issue at hand in this gun control debate. Haven't you noticed the discussions about folding stocks and hand grips on "assault weapons"? That's the cosmetic bull**** being discussed. They can kill no more people than long guns without them.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

sangha said:
"for the most part cosmetic", "to be the better choice", etc all prove that the claim that these features are "purely cosmetic" is false.
Click to expand...

Okay, the features are not purely cosmetic, I get it, I have said this before.

WARNING!!! THIS IS A QUESTION
REMEMBER TO NOTE PRIOR TO RESPONSE TO THIS POST THAT A QUESTION DOES NOT I REPEAT NOT!!! INSINUATE THAT YOU HAVE MADE THIS CLAIM.

Should certain features be illegal, and if so, why?
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

sangha said:
I said nothing about whether they should be used as criteria for a ban. I merely pointed out that the claim that they were "only cosmetic" is false and ignorant
Click to expand...

where are you, now that I've taken away your only opportunity to spin this into a silly argument about words like manufacture and cosmetic, you seem to have backed out of the argument is this to me that you forfeit?
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

CLAX1911 said:
you've been saying that for 13 pages, we get it, shut up.

the ignorance I see is that you continue to beat this dead horse. everyone gets it, for the love of all that is good in this world SHUT UP!

make a point regarding the OP, or get off of this thread.
Click to expand...

request denied
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

American said:
Of course they have a function, but they are not the issue at hand in this gun control debate. Haven't you noticed the discussions about folding stocks and hand grips on "assault weapons"? That's the cosmetic bull**** being discussed. They can kill no more people than long guns without them.
Click to expand...

If the "cosmetics" are not the issue, then why do the rightwingers repeatedly make dishonest claims about cosmetics?
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

American said:
Of course they have a function, but they are not the issue at hand in this gun control debate. Haven't you noticed the discussions about folding stocks and hand grips on "assault weapons"? That's the cosmetic bull**** being discussed. They can kill no more people than long guns without them.
Click to expand...

It is sangha attempting to "spin" which means being intellectually dishonest. He pulled the same crap with me and the word manufacture. He insinuated that to change parts on a gun was manufacturing, I beat him with logic, saying that changing parts in my vehicle makes me an auto manufacturer then. To that...silence.

All he has as a foot hold is the dead horse he delights in kicking, this meaning of the word cosmetic. Even though numerous times it has been stated that he was correct that cosmetic may not be the right term. He goes back to his dead horse and commenced to kicking it again
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

sangha said:
request denied
Click to expand...

Continuing with this charade, isn't helping your credibility.

12 pages ago we understood that comes Medical is not the right word choice. but you must love to kick that dead horse.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

CLAX1911 said:
Continuing with this charade, isn't helping your credibility.

12 pages ago we understood that comes Medical is not the right word choice. but you must love to kick that dead horse.
Click to expand...

Thank you for admitting that I was right all along
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

sangha said:
Thank you for admitting that I was right all along
Click to expand...

Yes, you were right.

Now that your ego has been stroked and your deviation arrested. Do you have anything to say about this topic?

Or just more word games?
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

sangha said:
If the "cosmetics" are not the issue, then why do the rightwingers repeatedly make dishonest claims about cosmetics?
Click to expand...

Because most people who have these kind of guns add those things on just for appearances.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

sangha said:
If the "cosmetics" are not the issue, then why do the rightwingers repeatedly make dishonest claims about cosmetics?
Click to expand...

Because the true functions of these accessories are being labeled "dangerous," when no subsequent increase in danger or lethality is involved. The functions as described by the anti-gun faction are, in fact, cosmetic, as they only "look" more dangerous.

You failed to answer my question - why should these features such as pistol grips, collapsible stocks, and barrel shrouds be banned?
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

CLAX1911 said:
assault weapon meaning of class of rifle.
Click to expand...

According to the FBI (I can provide a copy of the email from them stating the following if you wish) the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act is what they use to determine what constitutes an assault weapon. Assault weapons consist of rifles, pistols and shotguns with a certain number of features to them as well as some specifically named weapons.

So if you say assault weapons then you are talking about all three groups. If you want to discuss only assault rifles, then you need to say assault rifles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom