• 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?

And I liked your post, not because I agreed with you but because you're demonstrating reason and not making accusations.

As far as banning musical instruments, I don't think that's a realistic comparison. I know some people think the music I make is ghastly, but it's never killed anyone (yet)

However, I think you are "begging the question" when it comes to the "cosmetics". We're here discussing whether those features do or do not make a weapon more dangerous in the hands of a lunatic or a criminal. Just declaring that they are not is just a short circuiting of the debate, and will not do anyone any good. Particularly with regards to an issue where many, and probably most, people already have their minds made up.

I think it's obvious that many on the right are concerned that the public support for gun safety laws will result in additional restictions being placed on gun ownership. What do you think would be a more effective way of countering that sentiment - a sane and sober discussion of the various features (what they are, what they do, how they can be used) or strident declarations that "THEY'RE PURELY COSMETIC!!" followed with insults directed at anyone who disagrees with that assertion?

Remember, a lot of people believe that people who like guns are nuts to begin with. Do you think the more strident talk is going to make them see your side as more rational, or will it enhance their perception of gun owners as being a crowd of hysterical loons?


Actually it is not a unrealistic comparison. MANY PEOPLE believe that violence is some music leads to violence - from Charles Mason to the Rolling Stones to rap and rage music about cop killing songs. And they could say "EVERY ONE OF THOSE SONGS USES A 6 STRING GUITAR!" Therefore, we should outlaw guitars and similar instruments with more than 5 strings.

There are two flaws in your arguing "those elements make a firearm more dangerous."

1. Inherently, firearms are meant to be dangerous.
2. Contrary to what you seem to believe, passing laws to try to make firearms inaccurate is nonsensical and dangerous.

Obviously you do want hunting and target shooting outlawed by deliberately trying to make firearms incapable of doing either. Maybe you would want manufacturers to be required to put on loose and non-adjustable inaccurate gun sights too - and with triggers that sometimes just go off on their own.

Back to the guitar analogy, it would be to add to regulations that it is illegal to allow guitars to be tunable.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

at one time in my life, I shot a fair amount of shotgun tournaments. Registered over 4000 targets (that's 40 events@100 targets an event) in one year. and I used to do a bit of exhibition shooting after spending some time with a guy named Matt Dryke (Olympic Gold Medalist-Skeet, 1984 and multiple US and world titles). We all used standard semi auto or pump shotguns without the scary looking pistol grips for shooting from the hip (yes I was able to shoot 25x25 in skeet that way and close to 25x25 in 16 yard trap), behind our backs, over our heads etc. As I noted, the only real advantage a real pistol grip gives is

1) shooting the weapon with the buttstock tucked under the armpit of the hand that holds the pistol grip

2) full automatic fire from a seated position or prone position with the weapon on sandbag or a bipod.

neither one of these "advantages" have ANY relevance to semi autos being "more dangerous" than rifles firing the same cartridge without a protruding pistol grip.

I would note that the introduction of high impact plastic moulding was a major reason why military rifles and those built using military rifle parts (like colt's AR 15) feature pistol grips. straight line stocks are much easier to mould and are less likely to break and such stocks require an additional pistol grip to access the trigger mechanism

If you look at battle rifles (MI Garand, Mauser 98) and early semi carbines like the MI Carbine-the stocks are full length meaning the buttstock, grip and handguard are all essentially the same piece of wood. Modular construction based on plastic moulding is the current technique



And people should recognize that anti-gun people are all but pathological liars. They pushed and urged people to get home defense shotguns. And lots -millions - of people did. They bought inexpensive pump 12 gauge shotguns with a pistol grip and folding stocks.

Now the anti-gun people are laughing with "HA! HA! FOOLED YOU! We are outlawing those!"

And, then, there is Joe Biden urging people to wildly fire off at the unknown and to commit a felony in Florida of a mandatory 20 years in prison with a shotgun.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

You and I have already been through this. You shouldn't be asking me this question because you should have a normal healthy memory and already know.

There's a difference between a 'cosmetic', and 'accessory', and a 'part'. I've gon into detail explaining each, and the bottom line is it doesn't matter which thing is what because citizens have the right to everything.

That's what people are trying to tell you, that whatever firearm, accessories and cosmetics exist, civilians have the right to personally own, without exception or limitation, and kind of firearm at all.

If you want a howitzer, you let me know when you're hitting the artillery rang, I'll bring the BBQ. You want a Saturday Night Special, go for it. You want a tricked out silenced full-auto MP5, no problem. You want a small-caliber hand gun with 19rnds with a modified trigger to fire 2rnds per trigger-pull, groovy.

Last night, I was told that I'm old, so I appreciate your humoring me

I can understand why you think "it doesn't matter" how dangerous something is, but it would seem that many disagree, including many who are opposed to further restictions. After all, they're the ones who are arguing that these features should not be banned because they are not dangerous. The obvious implication is that if they are dangerous, then they should/can be banned. After all, if it didn't matter they would argue as you just did and say "It doesn't matter"
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

at one time in my life, I shot a fair amount of shotgun tournaments. Registered over 4000 targets (that's 40 events@100 targets an event) in one year. and I used to do a bit of exhibition shooting after spending some time with a guy named Matt Dryke (Olympic Gold Medalist-Skeet, 1984 and multiple US and world titles). We all used standard semi auto or pump shotguns without the scary looking pistol grips for shooting from the hip (yes I was able to shoot 25x25 in skeet that way and close to 25x25 in 16 yard trap), behind our backs, over our heads etc. As I noted, the only real advantage a real pistol grip gives is

1) shooting the weapon with the buttstock tucked under the armpit of the hand that holds the pistol grip

2) full automatic fire from a seated position or prone position with the weapon on sandbag or a bipod.

neither one of these "advantages" have ANY relevance to semi autos being "more dangerous" than rifles firing the same cartridge without a protruding pistol grip.

I would note that the introduction of high impact plastic moulding was a major reason why military rifles and those built using military rifle parts (like colt's AR 15) feature pistol grips. straight line stocks are much easier to mould and are less likely to break and such stocks require an additional pistol grip to access the trigger mechanism

If you look at battle rifles (MI Garand, Mauser 98) and early semi carbines like the MI Carbine-the stocks are full length meaning the buttstock, grip and handguard are all essentially the same piece of wood. Modular construction based on plastic moulding is the current technique

Thanks for the info

Just to summarize, and correct me if I'm wrong, your saying that, aside from the design and manufacturing issues, a rifle with a pistol grip is easier to fire from a variety of positions other than the standard standing position (see below)

muzzleloader_firing_standing_position.gif
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

Thanks for the info

Just to summarize, and correct me if I'm wrong, your saying that, aside from the design and manufacturing issues, a rifle with a pistol grip is easier to fire from a variety of positions other than the standard standing position (see below)

muzzleloader_firing_standing_position.gif

NOt really. For example, shooting a weapon from the HIP is often painful with a full pistol grip since you have to contort your wrist and the recoil goes right into the wrist

that is why exhibition shotgun shooters use a more sporting style gun without a pistol grip

rather for the one handed under the armpit position, or prone or sitting with the weapon on a rest or bipod in full auto, the pistol grip is a bit easier
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

I believe that this is the crux of the contention between you and the others and that is proving that the grip actually provides more stabilization. And for that matter, with you yourself having noted that the pistol grip may provide less increase to the dangerousness of the rifle than other features, how little of an improvement to said increase of stability would it take before you discount it? a 1% improvement? .1%?, .01%? And with that, can you show what the improvement amount to the stability of a rifle is with a pistol grip over a non-pistol grip. Just one particular rifle is all I'm asking, no need to go through the entire list, although multiple examples would be nice should you find them together.

Now so far I've not really been in on the pistol grip/features argument portion, so at this point I'm not arguing if you are right or wrong. I'm simply asking you to prove your point.

Yes, that is the crux of the disagreement. As far as how much of a difference it makes, I have not made any assertions, so I have nothing to prove. My point being that if these features do make a difference, then it is dishonest for some people to claim that they don't make any difference, or are purely cosmetic.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

Last night, I was told that I'm old, so I appreciate your humoring me

I can understand why you think "it doesn't matter" how dangerous something is, but it would seem that many disagree, including many who are opposed to further restictions. After all, they're the ones who are arguing that these features should not be banned because they are not dangerous. The obvious implication is that if they are dangerous, then they should/can be banned. After all, if it didn't matter they would argue as you just did and say "It doesn't matter"
I don't know if this will matter to our conversation, but I have a short personal story:

When I was 13 I wanted a set of decorative samurai swords for my room. These were the cheap mall knock-offs, not genuine heirlooms. My father was fine with the idea, but my stepmother had a quasi-violent reaction to the mere suggestion of a weapon in 'her' home. I never got the swords, in fact that next week she grounded me for 2 months just for having a knife in my room (I was in to model aircraft and had broken the exact-o-knife I normally used, so I was making due with a stake knife from the kitchen). My stepmother said that by having that knife in my room, I was hording weapons to kill her.

Fast-forward to last weekend, I took my step-mother shooting for the first time in her life. though she is a 'new gun-owner' (which infers more than simply the amount of time she's owned a gun), she is working past her feelings of intimidation when someone has any kind of weapon or implement around her. She loves shooting her rifle and is in the market for a 357mag revolver for concealed carry.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

Actually it is not a unrealistic comparison. MANY PEOPLE believe that violence is some music leads to violence - from Charles Mason to the Rolling Stones to rap and rage music about cop killing songs. And they could say "EVERY ONE OF THOSE SONGS USES A 6 STRING GUITAR!" Therefore, we should outlaw guitars and similar instruments with more than 5 strings.

There are two flaws in your arguing "those elements make a firearm more dangerous."

1. Inherently, firearms are meant to be dangerous.
2. Contrary to what you seem to believe, passing laws to try to make firearms inaccurate is nonsensical and dangerous.

Obviously you do want hunting and target shooting outlawed by deliberately trying to make firearms incapable of doing either. Maybe you would want manufacturers to be required to put on loose and non-adjustable inaccurate gun sights too - and with triggers that sometimes just go off on their own.

Back to the guitar analogy, it would be to add to regulations that it is illegal to allow guitars to be tunable.

You do have a point about the "music is evil" crowd, but it does seem a bit tenous. Even at the height of their power, they never came close to banning any music, nevermind musical instruments. But I do get your point

As far as the "flaws" in my argument, since I've never said that rifles with those "elements" should be banned, explaining why they should not be banned does nothing to refute anything I've said. All I've said is that those claiming that these features are cosmetic or have no function are, at best, misinformed.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

Thanks for the info

Just to summarize, and correct me if I'm wrong, your saying that, aside from the design and manufacturing issues, a rifle with a pistol grip is easier to fire from a variety of positions other than the standard standing position (see below)

If, instead trying to intellectualize the issue, you chose to actually go out and use some of these firearms you wouldn't have to ask these ridiculous questions and MIGHT end up with the ability to ask better (more pertinent) questions.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

NOt really. For example, shooting a weapon from the HIP is often painful with a full pistol grip since you have to contort your wrist and the recoil goes right into the wrist

that is why exhibition shotgun shooters use a more sporting style gun without a pistol grip

rather for the one handed under the armpit position, or prone or sitting with the weapon on a rest or bipod in full auto, the pistol grip is a bit easier

Thanks for the clarification
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

I don't know if this will matter to our conversation, but I have a short personal story:

When I was 13 I wanted a set of decorative samurai swords for my room. These were the cheap mall knock-offs, not genuine heirlooms. My father was fine with the idea, but my stepmother had a quasi-violent reaction to the mere suggestion of a weapon in 'her' home. I never got the swords, in fact that next week she grounded me for 2 months just for having a knife in my room (I was in to model aircraft and had broken the exact-o-knife I normally used, so I was making due with a stake knife from the kitchen). My stepmother said that by having that knife in my room, I was hording weapons to kill her.

Fast-forward to last weekend, I took my step-mother shooting for the first time in her life. though she is a 'new gun-owner' (which infers more than simply the amount of time she's owned a gun), she is working past her feelings of intimidation when someone has any kind of weapon or implement around her. She loves shooting her rifle and is in the market for a 357mag revolver for concealed carry.

Nice story

It goes to show how factual info and real life experience can bring even the most gun-fearing of people around.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

If, instead trying to intellectualize the issue, you chose to actually go out and use some of these firearms you wouldn't have to ask these ridiculous questions and MIGHT end up with the ability to ask better (more pertinent) questions.

And if gun loons were to try and stop emotionalizing the issue, they might stop spreading misnformation and start educating people about the realities of gun use. Then, maybe there'd be fewer people who think of them as gun loons
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

I suspect the real issue is that those who want to ban guns are attempting to suggest that certain features-called by some to be cosmetic-make a gun "more deadly" or make it "more military" and thus more dangerous and "less suitable" for non military use. But since the guns targeted do not have full auto or burst fire capability, those features have no ability to make the gun be more "dangerous". An example would be putting "spoilers" or "wings" on a car that cannot go more than say 55MPH versus one that can do 245. ON a real race car, those wings or spoilers really do allow the car to handle at extremely high speeds far better than one with out it. at 55MPH on a sedan-not really.

NONE of the features gun banners use to distinguish one type of semi auto rifle from another has any rational basis for drawing a line for banning purposes

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

I suspect the real issue is that those who want to ban guns are attempting to suggest that certain features-called by some to be cosmetic-make a gun "more deadly" or make it "more military" and thus more dangerous and "less suitable" for non military use. But since the guns targeted do not have full auto or burst fire capability, those features have no ability to make the gun be more "dangerous". An example would be putting "spoilers" or "wings" on a car that cannot go more than say 55MPH versus one that can do 245. ON a real race car, those wings or spoilers really do allow the car to handle at extremely high speeds far better than one with out it. at 55MPH on a sedan-not really.

NONE of the features gun banners use to distinguish one type of semi auto rifle from another has any rational basis for drawing a line for banning purposes

.

I would word it differently. They aren't "trying to suggest" that. They truly believe it and as a result, want to see those features banned. They believe those features transform a weapon from something suitable for shooting rabbits or geese, into something designed to kill as many humans as possible as quickly as possible.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

I would word it differently. They aren't "trying to suggest" that. They truly believe it and as a result, want to see those features banned. They believe those features transform a weapon from something suitable for shooting rabbits or geese, into something designed to kill as many humans as possible as quickly as possible.

I agree and disagree. Lots of the LIVs, and others who don't really think about this issue until the media bombards them with a story like Newtown,-you are probably right about them

as to people like Schumer, Brady, Feinstein, Obama and Biden I disagree. They know better but have an agenda that has nothing to do with crime control or an honest belief that stuff with a pistol grip or a flash hider is too dangerous.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

You do have a point about the "music is evil" crowd, but it does seem a bit tenous. Even at the height of their power, they never came close to banning any music, nevermind musical instruments. But I do get your point

As far as the "flaws" in my argument, since I've never said that rifles with those "elements" should be banned, explaining why they should not be banned does nothing to refute anything I've said. All I've said is that those claiming that these features are cosmetic or have no function are, at best, misinformed.


I think people have agreed that many being discussed do have some functional usage - depending on the firearm and what it is.

That, then, leads to the relevant question of is it a "bad" function? Thumbstocks and pistol grips - some firearms - adds accuracy. Thus, the question is should laws be passed to reduce gun accuracy?

"Muzzlebrakes" on some firearms (not all) reduce barrel lift and recoil - either 1.) to allow a second accurate shot faster and/or 2.) so that very high caliber hunting rifles - all are bolt action - can even be used.

Again, is accurate shooting undesirable? Should big game hunting essentially be made illegal?

What also is not understood is circumstantially the military has different standards. For example, while you would think the military would prefer lighter weight rifles since soldiers already have to carry so much, historically the military preferred heavier rifles. It is easier to hold a heavier rifle (to a point) more steady and there is less relative recoil for faster shooting. However, the civilian models of those same calibers are generally much lighter weight.
Being lighter weight they are easier to carry, somewhat more concealable and it possible to carry more bullets, but rapid firing will reduce accuracy.

So, then should civilian rifles be heavier or lighter weight? Reducing weight is what is popular - except in big game guns - although lighter weight reduces control and accuracy. So which way should the government "regulate" the weight of firearms?

On handguns, getting lighter and lighter weight via plastics and alloys is the hot trend. BUT rapidly shooting a lightweight handgun for accuracy is all but impossible. On the other hand, for big caliber small guns, manufacturers have gone heavier because the lighter weight versions of decades ago could severely damage the shooter's hand.

In gun regulation proposals, there are calls for establishing maximum weight of handguns - for example - althought lighter weight is more concealable and easily snuck into places. So is limiting weight of handguns make them LESS usable for mass killing or murder, or make them more usable?

What is bothersome is that I think the people actually making these legal decisions don't know much about firearms in detail.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

Thanks for the clarification

The pistol grip became very popular for inexpensive home defense shotguns - since shotguns are urged by both anti-gun people (such as Biden) and pro-gun people for those who know little about firearms and have little skill. A pistol stock allows a shotgun to be short enough (but still longer than the minimum length) to be practical in a home interior setting. It's hard to swing a 38 inch long shotgun in a house with 36 inch doors nor easy to put away out of sight or securely.

After probably 10 million such home defense shotguns sold - anti-gun folks who urged such shotguns now wants them all declared illegal - and anyone who doesn't give it up should go to prison for years.

You probably notice that pro-gun rights folks don't believe anything anti-gun people say is their agenda or goals, because what they say they want and then pursue and do in law is rarely the same and often diametrically opposite.

As an example, MANY anti-gun rights people has stated on this forum AS FACT "don't panick, they will grandfather what you already have" - saying this at the same time EVERY state that is proposing banning firearms do NOT grandfather anything - so it is just more lies.

The lack of credibility also makes compromise or even debate basically impossible because pro-gun rights folks have ever reason to not believe anything anti-gun folks say or propose.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

I agree and disagree. Lots of the LIVs, and others who don't really think about this issue until the media bombards them with a story like Newtown,-you are probably right about them

as to people like Schumer, Brady, Feinstein, Obama and Biden I disagree. They know better but have an agenda that has nothing to do with crime control or an honest belief that stuff with a pistol grip or a flash hider is too dangerous.

The solution to LIV is public education and information instead of digging in heels and spreading paranoia, which only confirms the beliefs that gun owners are crazy.

And as far as politicians go, there's a lot of exploitation of emotion on both sides of the issue. What do you expect from politicians.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

I think people have agreed that many being discussed do have some functional usage - depending on the firearm and what it is.

That, then, leads to the relevant question of is it a "bad" function? Thumbstocks and pistol grips - some firearms - adds accuracy. Thus, the question is should laws be passed to reduce gun accuracy?

"Muzzlebrakes" on some firearms (not all) reduce barrel lift and recoil - either 1.) to allow a second accurate shot faster and/or 2.) so that very high caliber hunting rifles - all are bolt action - can even be used.

Again, is accurate shooting undesirable? Should big game hunting essentially be made illegal?

What also is not understood is circumstantially the military has different standards. For example, while you would think the military would prefer lighter weight rifles since soldiers already have to carry so much, historically the military preferred heavier rifles. It is easier to hold a heavier rifle (to a point) more steady and there is less relative recoil for faster shooting. However, the civilian models of those same calibers are generally much lighter weight.
Being lighter weight they are easier to carry, somewhat more concealable and it possible to carry more bullets, but rapid firing will reduce accuracy.

So, then should civilian rifles be heavier or lighter weight? Reducing weight is what is popular - except in big game guns - although lighter weight reduces control and accuracy. So which way should the government "regulate" the weight of firearms?

On handguns, getting lighter and lighter weight via plastics and alloys is the hot trend. BUT rapidly shooting a lightweight handgun for accuracy is all but impossible. On the other hand, for big caliber small guns, manufacturers have gone heavier because the lighter weight versions of decades ago could severely damage the shooter's hand.

In gun regulation proposals, there are calls for establishing maximum weight of handguns - for example - althought lighter weight is more concealable and easily snuck into places. So is limiting weight of handguns make them LESS usable for mass killing or murder, or make them more usable?

What is bothersome is that I think the people actually making these legal decisions don't know much about firearms in detail.

All gppd points, which is why I think the people who know the most about guns (ie gun owners) should speak soberly and informatively about these issues instead of screaming about gun grabbers and the evil federal govt. That only feeds into the misperception that many already have about gun owners, and makes them more likely to succeed
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

The pistol grip became very popular for inexpensive home defense shotguns - since shotguns are urged by both anti-gun people (such as Biden) and pro-gun people for those who know little about firearms and have little skill. A pistol stock allows a shotgun to be short enough (but still longer than the minimum length) to be practical in a home interior setting. It's hard to swing a 38 inch long shotgun in a house with 36 inch doors nor easy to put away out of sight or securely.

After probably 10 million such home defense shotguns sold - anti-gun folks who urged such shotguns now wants them all declared illegal - and anyone who doesn't give it up should go to prison for years.

You probably notice that pro-gun rights folks don't believe anything anti-gun people say is their agenda or goals, because what they say they want and then pursue and do in law is rarely the same and often diametrically opposite.

As an example, MANY anti-gun rights people has stated on this forum AS FACT "don't panick, they will grandfather what you already have" - saying this at the same time EVERY state that is proposing banning firearms do NOT grandfather anything - so it is just more lies.o=

The lack of credibility also makes compromise or even debate basically impossible because pro-gun rights folks have ever reason to not believe anything anti-gun folks say or propose.

Both sides have given the other reasons to distrust them, but that doesn't stop you from speaking rationally and unemotionally about the issue. Yet, you often choose to discuss this issue in a manner far from rational or unemotional.

Physician, heal thyself
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

The solution to LIV is public education and information instead of digging in heels and spreading paranoia, which only confirms the beliefs that gun owners are crazy.

And as far as politicians go, there's a lot of exploitation of emotion on both sides of the issue. What do you expect from politicians.


that's true but those who want to rape our rights based on false claims of promoting public safety are far far worse

there is no denying that deliberate lies and dishonesty are far more prevalent from the gun banners

Biden's recent sewage is criminally idiotic
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

that's true but those who want to rape our rights based on false claims of promoting public safety are far far worse

there is no denying that deliberate lies and dishonesty are far more prevalent from the gun banners

Biden's recent sewage is criminally idiotic

Do I really need to say how your "they do it too" argument sounds?

For someone who knows so much about guns, you certainly chose one of the weakest ways to counter. I know you can do better.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

Do I really need to say how your "they do it too" argument sounds?

For someone who knows so much about guns, you certainly chose one of the weakest ways to counter. I know you can do better.

I would suggest that if you are upset with dishonesty you should focus your efforts on the most egregious cases

what I do is make accurate statements and leave others to try to do the same
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

I would suggest that if you are upset with dishonesty you should focus your efforts on the most egregious cases

what I do is make accurate statements and leave others to try to do the same

And if you are upset at the prospect of legislation that palces additional limits on gun ownership you should focus your efforts on making effective arguments.

"They do it too" is not that.
 
Re: Are assault weapons more or less dangerous than pistols?

And if you are upset at the prospect of legislation that palces additional limits on gun ownership you should focus your efforts on making effective arguments.

"They do it too" is not that.

since this forum does not likely include politicians who matter, I would note that some arguments are designed to convince-or at least plausibly threaten (remember Congressman what happened to the last guy in this district who voted for gun bans-he's no longer in office)

other people are just tools of the gun control movement and are best used as examples
 
Back
Top Bottom