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?
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?
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 already addressed the question asked in the OP, and several people have posted opinions similar to mine.
You would know this if you weren't so obsessed with proving me wrong even though you know that I was right
I can list all the qualifications for what constitutes an assault weapons here is anyone wants.
If that is the case, then shouldn't the response be an explanation of what those features do and how they do not pose any danger to the public? Wouldn't that be more effective (and honest) than arguing the falsehood that they are purely cosmetic?
If that is the case, then shouldn't the response be an explanation of what those features do and how they do not pose any danger to the public? Wouldn't that be more effective (and honest) than arguing the falsehood that they are purely cosmetic?
no need.
An assault weapon is a weapon used in an assault. nothing else.
Somehow I don't think that "baseball bat" gets legally classified as an assault weapon regardless of how many assaults you make with it.
Somehow I don't think that "baseball bat" gets legally classified as an assault weapon regardless of how many assaults you make with it.
If used during an assault, how else would you classify it?
If used during an assault, how else would you classify it?
If used during an assault, how else would you classify it?
If that is the case, then shouldn't the response be an explanation of what those features do and how they do not pose any danger to the public? Wouldn't that be more effective (and honest) than arguing the falsehood that they are purely cosmetic?
Wow and I thought that sangha's "cosmetic" semantic argument was pitiful! The legal definition of an assault weapon and the colloquial definition are probably quite different. Legally an assault weapon is still an assault weapon even if it is never used in an assault. By the definition provided by Clax and supported by you, Paul, no bullet spitting device could ever be banned unless and until it was used in an assault and then only that single device, not the line. By that same definition, as a green belt Tae Kwon Do student, having been in sparing matches, I would need to be banned since I have assaulted someone, along with them assaulting me. It may have been a consensual assault, but it was still assault!
his statements totally wrong, when entered into evidence the bat or a frying pan for the brick used in assault, were the weapons of assault. I've set on numerous court cases where they refer to object is deadly weapons or assault weapons, typically the bricks are bats couple pairs of scissors steak knives pistols fists automobiles lumber modified clubs, tools.
calling an object that was not used in an assault, an assault weapon, is tantamount to saying the weapon is guilty of assault. totally completely absurd
I believe the term is "blunt object"
One could argue that is precisely what the current administration is avoiding at all costs. It is far more honest, and effective, to point out that these features have become targets simply because they "look scary," because there is no other rational argument in the case for their ban. Pistol grips do not make a weapon fire faster, nor do barrel shrouds increase muzzle velocity, nor do folding stocks make a rifle fit in your pocket. They are not inherently dangerous features, but instead of criticizing the left for failing to support that argument, you instead blast away at the right for making the contra-argument. All we have left is "scary looking," and that is no basis for a system of legislation.
Gun control has everything to do with control, and nothing to do with guns.
assault weapons shouldn't be banned, its redundant, because Assault is banned all this focus on the weapon and its just an object not guilty of assault, or even capable of being guilty. You are not allowed to carry a modifide club (baseball bat used as an assault weapon) but you can have one, they aren't banned, no object should be banned based on its misuse.
For the record punching someone (outside of a boxing ring) is concidered aggrivated assault, if you are a black belt, it could be assault with a deadly weapon. That is why I practice krav maga, no belts.
If the weapon of assault is a blunt object, then the blunt object is an assault weapon.
I'm glad to see that you agree with me that saying that these features are "only cosmetic" is not only wrong, but an ineffetive argument to make.
And I don't criticize the left for claiming that those features (or at least most of them) make guns more dangerous is because they do make the guns more dangerous
Rate of fire and muzzle velocity are not the only measures of a weapons effectiveness.
I'm glad to see that you agree with me that saying that these features are "only cosmetic" is not only wrong, but an ineffetive argument to make.
And I don't criticize the left for claiming that those features (or at least most of them) make guns more dangerous is because they do make the guns more dangerous
Rate of fire and muzzle velocity are not the only measures of a weapons effectiveness.
I can list all the qualifications for what constitutes an assault weapons here is anyone wants.
Please, elucidate for me how pistol grips and barrel shrouds make a weapon more dangerous. We're all waiting.
I have never said that these features only have cosmetic uses, but any increase in danger they provide is purely cosmetic. THAT is the "cosmetic" argument.