• 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!

Shouldn't the entire U.S be considered a gun free zone?

Rich2018 said:
Of course if there were few or no guns in society, the police wouldn't need to carry guns.


Go to the UK, British police do not routinely carry guns - they are much better equipped to police a community because of it.

When I speak to a cop in the USA, they are armed like storm troopers - I want to get away from them as fast as possible.


US society is polarized enough along racial lines. The police and the "civilians" is another dividing line.
Click to expand...

Yet Switzerland has a lower murder rate than the UK.
 
Oozlefinch said:
You are simply making up nonsensical terms.

A pistol has rifling, and can be used to assault.

Therefore, a pistol can be an assault rifle.
Click to expand...

Does a pistol fire a rifle bullet ?

Can a pistol be called a rifle ?

If it can't be called a rifle, it can't be called an assault rifle.
 
Maccabee said:
Yet Switzerland has a lower murder rate than the UK.
Click to expand...


Probably because Switzerland is a very wealthy country and therefore has a low crime rate.


The amount of guns in a society does not determine the crime rate (that is caused by factors such as poverty levels).

When a society has low income, poverty and high unemployment - it has high crime rates.
If that society lacks gun control, then the crimes committed with have a higher level of firearm use.
A higher level of firearm usage will mean more deaths and injuries caused by gunshot wounds.
 
Rich2018 said:
Does a pistol fire a rifle bullet ?

Can a pistol be called a rifle ?

If it can't be called a rifle, it can't be called an assault rifle.
Click to expand...

You see, this is why I have your posts placed where I do not see them. Then I saw you quoted me, and I was curious as to what you said.

And as expected, it was absolute nonsense.

Here, let me post once again the most insane thing.

Rich2018 said:
Does a pistol fire a rifle bullet ?
Click to expand...

Here, first, the definition of what "rifle" means:

ri·fle1
/ˈrīfəl/
noun

noun: rifle; plural noun: rifles

1.
a gun, especially one fired from shoulder level, having a long spirally grooved barrel intended to make a bullet spin and thereby have greater accuracy over a long distance.


verb

verb: rifle; 3rd person present: rifles; past tense: rifled; past participle: rifled; gerund or present participle: rifling

1.
make spiral grooves in (a gun or its barrel or bore) to make a bullet spin and thereby have greater accuracy over a long distance.
"a line of replacement rifled barrels"

You see, the "rifle" is the groves in the barrel of the weapon. It is not the bullet! There is absolutely no such thing as a "Rifle Bullet", a bullet can be fired from any gun through any barrel, rifled or not. And there is nothing special about the bullet from either one. A musket ball can be fired form a smooth bore musket, or a rifled musket. The ball is the same for each one!

Now, to continue:

Rich2018 said:
Can a pistol be called a rifle ?
Click to expand...

Technically, yes. Here, the definition once again:

a gun, especially one fired from shoulder level, having a long spirally grooved barrel
Click to expand...

Notice, it says "especially", not "exclusively". So technically it can be called a "rifle", but few people do.

Rich2018 said:
If it can't be called a rifle, it can't be called an assault rifle.
Click to expand...

So once again, in your ignorance you try to make up a definition that makes absolutely no sense to anybody that knows about weapons. So since a pistol does have rifling and can be called a rifle, one therefore can be called an "assault rifle" in your world.

By the definition, this is a "rifle", because the 4 barrels are very obviously rifled.

duckfoot.jpg
 
Rich2018 said:
Weird.

So the Nazi Holocaust wasn't genocide either as there are still European Jews ?
Click to expand...

A fine line being walked here. The Governments preferred method was displacement of the Native Americans (Ethnic Cleansing) rather than all out slaughter (Genocide)...

There were those that were genocidal, but it was not the intended goal.
 
Oozlefinch said:
You see, this is why I have your posts placed where I do not see them. Then I saw you quoted me, and I was curious as to what you said.

And as expected, it was absolute nonsense.

Here, let me post once again the most insane thing.



Here, first, the definition of what "rifle" means:

ri·fle1
/ˈrīfəl/
noun

noun: rifle; plural noun: rifles

1.
a gun, especially one fired from shoulder level, having a long spirally grooved barrel intended to make a bullet spin and thereby have greater accuracy over a long distance.


verb

verb: rifle; 3rd person present: rifles; past tense: rifled; past participle: rifled; gerund or present participle: rifling

1.
make spiral grooves in (a gun or its barrel or bore) to make a bullet spin and thereby have greater accuracy over a long distance.
"a line of replacement rifled barrels"

You see, the "rifle" is the groves in the barrel of the weapon. It is not the bullet! There is absolutely no such thing as a "Rifle Bullet", a bullet can be fired from any gun through any barrel, rifled or not. And there is nothing special about the bullet from either one. A musket ball can be fired form a smooth bore musket, or a rifled musket. The ball is the same for each one!
Click to expand...

As always you type complete nonsense, but since you quoted me, I had to read it and respond.

I am fully aware that the early rifles fired musket balls and not bullets.

However if you can time warp yourself to today's real world you'll see that most definitely there is a difference between a rifle bullet and a pistol bullet.

The German were perhaps the first to make this distinction at the dawn of automatic fire when they classified their automatic weapons as either:

Machine Pistols (MP - such as the famous WWI sub-machine gun the MP-18, called such because it fired a PISTOL bullet))
Machine Rifles (MG - such as the famous "Spandau" MG-08, or the WWII machine gun the MG34 and later MG-42, called such because they fired a RIFLE bullet)

I sometimes find it hard that so many people who profess to have some knowledge about firearms do not understand basic terms.


Oh and Btw, despite what some dictionary might say, all rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder, using two hands, whereas pistols are designed to be fired with one hand (though two can be used) hence the term "hand gun".


Now of course you may go and find a firearm with a rifled barrel designed to be fired whilst held between the knees...however please refer to my comments above about the modern world.


...Now, to continue...
Click to expand...

By all means, let's see if you can improve.


...technically, yes. Here, the definition once again...
Click to expand...

Technically no.

See above regarding the use of one or two hands.

A pistol is a HAND gun, a rifle requires two hands.

You can put rifling in the barrel of a hand gun (pistol to you) it does not make it a "rifle".

Are you REALLY confused about the difference between a rifle and a pistol - you sound like you'd fit right in with the liberal gun-control lobby. They wouldn't know either.



...so once again, in your ignorance you try to make up a definition that makes absolutely no sense to anybody that knows about weapons....
Click to expand...


So once again, in your ignorance you try to make up a definition that makes absolutely no sense to anybody that knows about weapons.
 
Fledermaus said:
A fine line being walked here. The Governments preferred method was displacement of the Native Americans (Ethnic Cleansing) rather than all out slaughter (Genocide)...

There were those that were genocidal, but it was not the intended goal.
Click to expand...


The US government shipped off Native Americans to bare habitable places called reservations.

It is true that these reservations weren't death camps - though it's also true that the US government placed the Native Americans there and didn't care if they lived or died.
 
Rich2018 said:
The US government shipped off Native Americans to bare habitable places called reservations.

It is true that these reservations weren't death camps - though it's also true that the US government placed the Native Americans there and didn't care if they lived or died.
Click to expand...

Not entirely true.

There were those that did care. Just as there were those there to profit from the system. And those who just didn't care.

"[President Andrew Jackson] sent the Indians to Oklahoma. They had a treaty that said, 'You shall have this land as long as grass grows and water flows.' It was not only a good rhyme but looked like a good treaty, and it was till they struck oil. Then the Government took it away from us again. They said the treaty only refers to 'Water and Grass; it don't say anything about oil'."

"Now they have moved the Indians [again] and they settled the whole thing by putting them on land where the grass won't grow and the water won't flow."
- Will Rogers
 
Fledermaus said:
Not entirely true.

There were those that did care. Just as there were those there to profit from the system. And those who just didn't care.

"[President Andrew Jackson] sent the Indians to Oklahoma. They had a treaty that said, 'You shall have this land as long as grass grows and water flows.' It was not only a good rhyme but looked like a good treaty, and it was till they struck oil. Then the Government took it away from us again. They said the treaty only refers to 'Water and Grass; it don't say anything about oil'."

"Now they have moved the Indians [again] and they settled the whole thing by putting them on land where the grass won't grow and the water won't flow."
- Will Rogers
Click to expand...


The ones that did care.

Were any of them presidents of the USA ?
 
Fledermaus said:
Not entirely true.
Click to expand...

Only a relatively small percentage of Indians were moved onto reservations in Oklahoma. The tribes that were moved were the warlike ones that had been causing problems. If the claims were true, then how can there be large reservations all over the East Coast and Northern Mid-west? In Connecticut? In Upstate New York? In Virginia? In North Carolina? In Georgia? In Florida? In Maine?

And in the centuries since, large numbers simply "left the reservation" and took their places among the rest of the population. That is why I was born in California, and not in Oklahoma. During the Dust Bowl era, my family left the reservation and never looked back. And my family prior to that was actually doing rather well. They were from the Northern Potawatomie that stayed in their homelands of Michigan-Wisconsin, but moved to the Potawatomie reservation in Oklahoma to deal in farm equipment at the turn of the century. They were not forced there at all, it was a business opportunity that caused them to move there.

Funny how non-Indians in this country and others have a very badly skewed idea of what things were actually like. We simply blended into the rest of society.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Only a relatively small percentage of Indians were moved onto reservations in Oklahoma. The tribes that were moved were the warlike ones that had been causing problems. If the claims were true, then how can there be large reservations all over the East Coast and Northern Mid-west? In Connecticut? In Upstate New York? In Virginia? In North Carolina? In Georgia? In Florida? In Maine?

And in the centuries since, large numbers simply "left the reservation" and took their places among the rest of the population. That is why I was born in California, and not in Oklahoma. During the Dust Bowl era, my family left the reservation and never looked back. And my family prior to that was actually doing rather well. They were from the Northern Potawatomie that stayed in their homelands of Michigan-Wisconsin, but moved to the Potawatomie reservation in Oklahoma to deal in farm equipment at the turn of the century. They were not forced there at all, it was a business opportunity that caused them to move there.

Funny how non-Indians in this country and others have a very badly skewed idea of what things were actually like. We simply blended into the rest of society.
Click to expand...

There is so much to discuss.

For example, in southern California near Temecula there are Native owned lands... It looks like a checkerboard. The lands were granted so nothing large could ever be built as none of the plots connect to the others.

And disease took the majority of the dead, not combat.

The trail of tears is the most publicized of the various expulsions.
 
Rich2018 said:
Does a pistol fire a rifle bullet ?

Can a pistol be called a rifle ?

If it can't be called a rifle, it can't be called an assault rifle.
Click to expand...

There are rifle caliber pistols.
 
Maccabee said:
There are rifle caliber pistols.
Click to expand...


The famous Mauser C-96 fired a 7.63mm caliber round but hardly comparable with the rounds fired by Mauser rifles of the day.


What pistols are you thinking about ?


I suppose you could chamber a pistol for certain rifle rounds like the 5.56mm NATO - not sure how it would work fired one handed though. You could also chamber a rifle with a 9mm pistol round but again I'm not sure what the point would be.

The main point though, is that if a fireman is not a rifle (and not that is not defined by the rifling on the barrel otherwise you'd call a 120mm MBT main armament a "rifle") , it can't be called an assault rifle either.


If you chamber a magazine fed, automatic firearm with a round designed for use in handguns, you have a Machine Pistol or a sub-machine gun.
 
Rich2018 said:
The famous Mauser C-96 fired a 7.63mm caliber round but hardly comparable with the rounds fired by Mauser rifles of the day.


What pistols are you thinking about ?


I suppose you could chamber a pistol for certain rifle rounds like the 5.56mm NATO - not sure how it would work fired one handed though. You could also chamber a rifle with a 9mm pistol round but again I'm not sure what the point would be.

The main point though, is that if a fireman is not a rifle (and not that is not defined by the rifling on the barrel otherwise you'd call a 120mm MBT main armament a "rifle") , it can't be called an assault rifle either.


If you chamber a magazine fed, automatic firearm with a round designed for use in handguns, you have a Machine Pistol or a sub-machine gun.
Click to expand...

.45-70 revolvers

.243 Remington pistol

.30 carbine Ruger Single action.

.410 shot pistols.

That is just of the top of my head.
 
Rich2018 said:
Just taking your first one.

Are you saying there is a rifle round in .45 ?
Click to expand...

Yes. . 45 caliber, 70 grains black powder (original load). It was the US Army issued round for trapdoor Springfield, many Sharp's rifles, Etc.

.43 caliber was a common round of the time.

.50 caliber was common as well.

For 1800-1900s rounds nomenclature it is 'caliber - grains of powder'. A 30-30 is 30cal, 30grains.
 
Last edited:
Bucky said:
The United States is the only country in the world that has a "right to bear arms" in its Constitution. It is quite insane but we have to live with it.

The Founding Fathers did mention maintaining a "well-regulated militia." We do know guns are not well regulated in this country. This social experiment has failed for the last 200 years.

When I read the term "well-regulated militia" I automatically assume this gives a presumption against gun ownership and making it less available for the everyday citizen.
Click to expand...

Please, the right to bear arms is in our bill of rights, placed there 2nd in importance. The militia, my friend are the American people themselves.
 
lefty louie said:
Please, the right to bear arms is in our bill of rights, placed there 2nd in importance. The militia, my friend are the American people themselves.
Click to expand...

In the context of when it was written it made sense; the country was still mostly frontier land. Now obviously the SCOTUS has ruled on the interpretation recently, but whether or not it will always remain so depends on how attitudes change in the future. There are aspects of previous laws that were specific to their time that have since been amended based on changing cultural norms and attitudes.
 
ElChupacabra said:
In the context of when it was written it made sense; the country was still mostly frontier land. Now obviously the SCOTUS has ruled on the interpretation recently, but whether or not it will always remain so depends on how attitudes change in the future. There are aspects of previous laws that were specific to their time that have since been amended based on changing cultural norms and attitudes.
Click to expand...

You give up your rights and I'll fight for you to get them back, good luck there west coast, hope Cali does break apart, it shows how disgusted people are with those that think like you.
 
lefty louie said:
You give up your rights and I'll fight for you to get them back, good luck there west coast, hope Cali does break apart, it shows how disgusted people are with those that think like you.
Click to expand...

Good thing I'm not on the west coast then eh? So the disgust is what, that laws are subject to change? If at some point this country's people decide to change the 2nd amendment then that's what I was referring to; not sure what's to be disgusted about. But if it makes you feel better you can go shout at a tree.
 
ElChupacabra said:
Good thing I'm not on the west coast then eh? So the disgust is what, that laws are subject to change? If at some point this country's people decide to change the 2nd amendment then that's what I was referring to; not sure what's to be disgusted about. But if it makes you feel better you can go shout at a tree.
Click to expand...

My apologies I thought it said Golden state not Garden state. So you hail from NJ, just like me. Another slap in the face of our rights, it's so hard to own a fire arm here it is bordering on the criminal.

Yes laws are subject to change, wait until they start doing away with free speech, or your ability to seek medical care outside the country like they do in the UK.
 
Rich2018 said:
Does a pistol fire a rifle bullet ?

Can a pistol be called a rifle ?

If it can't be called a rifle, it can't be called an assault rifle.
Click to expand...

Yes and yes and it can because it is...
 
lefty louie said:
My apologies I thought it said Golden state not Garden state. So you hail from NJ, just like me. Another slap in the face of our rights, it's so hard to own a fire arm here it is bordering on the criminal.

Yes laws are subject to change, wait until they start doing away with free speech, or your ability to seek medical care outside the country like they do in the UK.
Click to expand...

Banning weapons isn't going to work since if it's not AR-15s, potential shooters can find a new weapon of choice. So what do you think is a viable solution?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom