- Joined
- Jul 1, 2011
- Messages
- 67,218
- Reaction score
- 28,530
- Location
- Lower Hudson Valley, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Actually statistics abound showing that pistols are, by far, the weapon of choice for most crime. It is not convenient or discrete to walk about with an AW, while a pistol in your pocket or waistband is very handy and discrete. While mass shooters do not generally care about escape most criminals are after money and/or revenge and wish to live to enjoy it.
Actually statistics abound showing that pistols are, by far, the weapon of choice for most crime. It is not convenient or discrete to walk about with an AW, while a pistol in your pocket or waistband is very handy and discrete. While mass shooters do not generally care about escape most criminals are after money and/or revenge and wish to live to enjoy it.
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
Of course reasonable people can disagree about if a pistol grip provides a better grip or not.
The thing is your ignoring all the other better ways of stabilizing a weapon and focusing on the pistol grip which doesnt provide any noticeable increase of stability if any at all.
You havent shown that a pistol grip can do any of the things that you claim it can do. The only thing I agree with you on is that a pistol grip is more comfortable and even then thats more personal preference then anything else. If you want your claims to have any sort of validity to them you need to provide proof such as a study comparing the accuracy of a weapon with a pistol grip and one without or the stability of a weapon with a pistol grip and one without. You havent provided any.
And yes max effective range isnt the only measure of effectiveness but when you are talking about the accuracy of a weapon which we were it is the best measure of effectiveness.
True. If you're going to measure danger by the aggregated total of deaths, then pistols are by far the most dangerous. However, that's not the only way to measure danger
If you were to measure it by looking at the weapons used in the individual incidents with the greatest number of gun fatalities, rifles, particularly assault rifles, are common at the top of that list.
what we both know, and I will say, is that none of those features create a rational reason for causing weapons with the features to be banned
it was about which 1 poses a bigger danger, danger is something that affects people.
not sure what you mean by your post stands. but it wouldn't actually depend on the environment for the situation, it would depend on the people.
situation doesn't mean people
there have never been any massacres by civilians in the USA of other civilians using ASSAULT RIFLES. those firearms were not invented until WWII and there has NEVER been a case of a legally owned "assault rifle" being used in a massacre. Nor is there any examples of ILLEGAL ones being used to massacre US citizens in the USA
Lets pose a scenario...
Two people that are equally capable with a pistol are in two seperate situations. Person A is walks into a convience store with a pistol. Person B is in a car by themselves with a pistol going to do a drive by. Who's going to be more likely to hit the victim? Person A? Or Person B? Now put an assault rifle in their hands instead of a pistol. The victim sees Person A enter the store with a piss poorly concealed rifle...think they are just going to stand there? Where as the victim for Person B still don't know they are about to be hit. Who's more likely going to hit the victim?
True. If you're going to measure danger by the aggregated total of deaths, then pistols are by far the most dangerous. However, that's not the only way to measure danger
If you were to measure it by looking at the weapons used in the individual incidents with the greatest number of gun fatalities, rifles, particularly assault rifles, are common at the top of that list.
That is an odd way to look at "dangerous". While more fatalities per crash occur in airline crashes, car crashes claim far more lives. Your chance of being a victim (the truest danger factor?) of a mass shooting is far, far less than that of dying from many, many other things. Mass shootings occur about twice per year (50 victims tops?), on average, while other gun crime claims about 10,000 victims per year.
What is most scary about mass shootings is that they are typically done by really insane folks that no law will effectively deter since these killers do not care to survive the event. This "fear factor" is what leads many to wish to restrict the freedom of all, via gun control, to prevent that teeny, tiny number of loons from succeeding in their insane quests to kill lots of folks.
The problem is that by creating more unarmed victims, via restrictive (and expensive) gun control, that overall crime deaths will likely rise - actually costing more innocent lives than are saved by possibly reducing mass shootings.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf#page=27
Not if they're being reasonable. Providing a better grip is the primary purpose of a pistol grip
Again, the fact that there are other, or even better, ways of stabilizing a weapon doesn't mean that a pistol grip does not help stabilize a weapon.
I have provided links for all things I claimed about a pistol grip, with the exception that they provide a better grip. I assumed that people who claim to know so much about weapons would know about this fundamental fact. But I will now remedy the lack of supporting links
Here's A Glossary Of Need-To-Know Terms For The Assault Weapons Ban Debate - Business Insider
Gun Stocks & Grips SALE Rifle Stocks, 1911 Grips, Shotgun Stocks, Pistol Grips
advantages of a pistol grip [Archive] - Calguns.net
Pistol grip - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I don't think it's a good way of measuring the effectiveness of a weapon intended to be used in a mass shooting where the overwhelming # of people are much closer than that. In this case, it not only not the only measure of accuracy or effectiveness, it's not even the best one
situation still doesn't matter, if person A and B are not killers, then the situation isn't dangerous.
Thats not actually true. A fully automatic weapon is very hard to control and you wont get very many hits on target with one while a semiautomatic weapon is very easy to control and you can get several hits on target.
Except that it isnt the sole purpose. Its comfort.
Right but why are you focusing on the pistol grip if you acknowledge that there are better ways of improving the stability of a weapon?
The first link is business insider an certainly not a good source for info on guns. The second is a retail store that makes a claim that their grips can improve the stability of a weapon but nothing to back it up. Your third link is a bunch of peoples opinions but no real data. Your fourth link doesnt even have a source for where it is claimed that a pistol grip improves the stability of a weapon. Im looking for data here and your just not providing it. Remember when I talked about studies comparing rifles with and without pistol grips?
Its the best way of measuring the range of what a weapon can be effective in terms of accuracy which is what we were talking about remember? We were talking about the accuracy of a weapon not mattering because of the range that most shots occur in mass shootings and you said that not all shots are taken at close range to which I replied that since the max effective range of the SKS is 400-430 yards it would have no problem being effective at about 100 yards which is what I would guess would be the longest shot anyone would need to take during a mass shooting. If you have a better way to measure that then please by all means go ahead and tell me what it is.
That depends on the weapon and the experience of the owner.
Not all semi-automatic rifles are difficult to control. I have fired ones that are and ones that are not.
Someone well trained on a suitable weapon can place a lot of bullets in a designated target area - even with a semi-automatic rifle.
Since you hav, in the past, asked me several questions about my positions on guns, and I have answered, it's your turn to be questioned
Are pistol grips "purely cosmetic", or do they have a function?
If the latter, what is the function that pistol grips perform?
Do pistol grips provide a better grip, help the shooter keep the weapon stable?
Can it help with the shooters accuracy?
Does it make it easier for the shooter to fire the weapon one handed, so that the user can use the other hand for other purposes (such as opening doors, etc)?
In which case it has nothing to do with this subject. Remember...."it was about which 1 poses a bigger danger, danger is something that affects people." Since we're talking about posing the biggest danger then Person A and Person B would naturally have to be willing to kill.
Nice try at dancing around trying not to admit that I have a point.
it doesn't have to be it's sole purpose. If it helps the shooter get a firmer grip, it helps make the weapon more dangerous in his hands.
ANd I'm not the one who is focusing on pistol grips. It's the rightwingers who are repeating falsehoods such as "pistol grips are solely cosmetic", and "pistol grips do not make the weapon more dangerous" who are focusing on pistol grips.
ANd yes, the first link is not definitive, but the other links corrorborate it.
The 2nd shows that my claim is not without merit. I could just as easily say that your claim that a pistol grip does nothing has nothing to back it up.
I'm not sure what you're looking for when you say you want data. The fact that several sources corroborate my claim ...is that not data?
And no, I don't remember ever agreeing that max eff range is the best measure of accuracy, particularly when talking about mass shootings. RE: a better measure - I dont think any one factor can be used as the definitive measure of effectiveness. The point here is whether or not a pistol grip makes a weapon more dangerous. If it makes a shooter more effective *at any range*, then it has made the weapon more dangerous
I think ya'll are over-thinking this.
Common sense definition of an assault rifle: If a rifle is a semi automatic and it was trialed or selected in any police or military tactical rifle trial, it is an assault rifle. Make and maintain a list.
you have no point, your point was the situation is more dangerous depending on the gun.
my point is the situation is only as dangerous as the people involved.
since when is stating fact dancing around? or are you just another political hack?
rejected as silly. do police own weapons to assault a fixed position-ie hose it down with automatic fire so that other members of the police can destroy the position with explosives or flame throwers?
IF NOT then it is not an Assault rifle
you need to learn what the term ASSAULT meant when the term ASSAULT RIFLE was created
It's not silly, its common sense. This definition would cover the ar 15, ak 47, SKS, bushmasters, and tons of what we generally consider assault weapons. It would NOT cover anschutz target rifles, no .22 rimfires, whether they have a pistol grip or not.
It actually gets right to the point.
It's not silly, its common sense. This definition would cover the ar 15, ak 47, SKS, bushmasters, and tons of what we generally consider assault weapons. It would NOT cover anschutz target rifles, no .22 rimfires, whether they have a pistol grip or not.
It actually gets right to the point.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?