• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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 so called assault weapons more deadly

Fact-Check: The Gun Lobby Claims Assault Weapons Are No More Dangerous Than Hunting Rifles. The Human Body Begs To Differ.
https://publichealthwatch.wordpress...hunting-rifles-the-human-body-begs-to-differ/

Iraq War Doctor: Assault Weapons Are ‘Human-Killing Machines’
Iraq War Doctor: Assault Weapons Are 'Human-Killing Machines' - The National Memo

LOL those are not the same rifles over here

ask the good doctor if he would rather get hit with a FMJ out of an AR-15 or a soft tip moose load out of a bolt action Winchester 300 magnum

the doctor is FOS. the rounds coming out of the AR 15 are far less likely to kill you then the most popular hunting rifle cartridge in the USA-a 30-06 180 grain soft point bullete
 
Fact-Check: The Gun Lobby Claims Assault Weapons Are No More Dangerous Than Hunting Rifles. The Human Body Begs To Differ.
https://publichealthwatch.wordpress...hunting-rifles-the-human-body-begs-to-differ/

Iraq War Doctor: Assault Weapons Are ‘Human-Killing Machines’
Iraq War Doctor: Assault Weapons Are 'Human-Killing Machines' - The National Memo

the guy that wrote that is a hard core Left wing operative--nothing he says can be taken seriously since he doesn't even understand that "assault weapons" are not being used in Iraq. what a load of crap-he's a twice unsuccessful DEMOCRAT party congressional candidate. He's a political HACK
 
the guy that wrote that is a hard core Left wing operative--nothing he says can be taken seriously since he doesn't even understand that "assault weapons" are not being used in Iraq. what a load of crap-he's a twice unsuccessful DEMOCRAT party congressional candidate. He's a political HACK

Just because you call him a "left wing operative" does not address or challenge the facts............You need to address the facts presented and not attack the man to win an argument

When are you RW folks going to figure out it matters not who/what political the leaning are is not an argument.........nor does not prove anything

It does not matter who he is..............but what he says.....Challenge the facts or stop wasting our time with the ad hominems.........
 
Fact-Check: The Gun Lobby Claims Assault Weapons Are No More Dangerous Than Hunting Rifles. The Human Body Begs To Differ.
https://publichealthwatch.wordpress...hunting-rifles-the-human-body-begs-to-differ/

Iraq War Doctor: Assault Weapons Are ‘Human-Killing Machines’
Iraq War Doctor: Assault Weapons Are 'Human-Killing Machines' - The National Memo



LOL.


I own both. I don't have to wonder.

If I am going to be shot once in some random body location, PLEASE shoot me with an AR15, NOT an average deer rifle!! Much better chance of survival from a .223 than a 30-06.
 
Got a 12 ga pump in the gun cabinet that can put more rounds of lethal-size lead downrange in 10 seconds than any AR-15 made... nine .30 lead balls per buck shell, 9x8= 72, lots more than the AR's thirty round mag...
 
Just because you call him a "left wing operative" does not address or challenge the facts............You need to address the facts presented and not attack the man to win an argument

When are you RW folks going to figure out it matters not who/what political the leaning are is not an argument.........nor does not prove anything

It does not matter who he is..............but what he says.....Challenge the facts or stop wasting our time with the ad hominems.........

1) he doesn't know that the military isn't using "assault weapons" over there

2) he is too dishonest to understand that the bullets fired from military rifles are the least lethal one can obtain for a given caliber of weapon

3) that the cartridges used in current military rifles are far less lethal than what was the military standard in

1) the Boer war (303 enfield)

2) WWI (303, 8mm and 30-06)

3. WWII (same as WWI)

4. Korea (30-06, and 7.62 x54 though the 7.62X39 was starting to appear)

and what the USA used in the start of the Nam war 7.62 NATO

and the stuff modern assault rifles (5.56mm-NATO, 545x39 Russian and 762x39-ComBloc) use are not nearly as deadly as the most popular hunting cartridges used for medium to large game in the USA

1) 30-06
2) 7mm
3) 270
4) 308
5) 30-30
6) 338 Winchester Magnum
7) and even the .243

indeed, modern assault rifles shoot a less lethal version of the most popular varmint calibers such as the

22-250
222
223


so he's full of excrement when he says "assault weapons" should be banned due to the "horrific injuries" when what my grand pa used to shoot deer with in Florida is gonna screw you up far worse than a center of mass hit from an M4 machine carbine

and if you really want to see horrific wounds-googel what happens when someone is shot at close range with a 12G shotgun loaded with the same shot one uses to shoot doves or skeet with
and the 6mm PPC
 
LOL those are not the same rifles over here

ask the good doctor if he would rather get hit with a FMJ out of an AR-15 or a soft tip moose load out of a bolt action Winchester 300 magnum

the doctor is FOS. the rounds coming out of the AR 15 are far less likely to kill you then the most popular hunting rifle cartridge in the USA-a 30-06 180 grain soft point bullete

I agree ....those are not the same as used in war.........however they use the same ammo with the same devastating effect as the ones used in war............And if I may the Doctor is a professional with first hand experience.......You are not.............So who do you believe folks are going to think is FOS?
 
I agree ....those are not the same as used in war.........however they use the same ammo with the same devastating effect as the ones used in war............And if I may the Doctor is a professional with first hand experience.......You are not.............So who do you believe folks are going to think is FOS?

look-that democrat twit is claiming semi autos firing intermediate cartridges ought to be banned based on the wounds they can cause suggests that this dishonest twit would ban any firearm that shoots bullets that cause EVEN worse wounds

so he wants to ban all hunting rifles and all shotguns too since the round coming out of a AR 15 is among the least traumatic of any centerfire rifle cartridge on the market

so he is a gun banner pure and simple

its like banoid politicians who say AR 15s have to be banned because there are maybe 100 fatalities a year attributed to the 4-10 million such rifles in circulation

well pistols are used to kill something like 90% of al gun shot victims so by definition, the same banoids want to ban all pistols too if the number of deaths is what they use to justify AR 15 bans
 
762x51mm-nato.webp


The cartridge on the left is a typical "assault weapon cartridge" the one in the middle is the famous 30-30 deer rifle cartridge designed for lever action tube fed rifles (hence the blunt point so it won't detonate the cartridge in front of it during the recoil impulse). the last cartridge is what we used in the beginning of the Nam war and is a smaller version of the 30-06-the standard big game cartridge in NA for 100 years



which of the three is going to cause the most grievous wounds? the middle cartridge since its a soft tip

which one the least=the one on the left
 
I agree ....those are not the same as used in war.........however they use the same ammo with the same devastating effect as the ones used in war............And if I may the Doctor is a professional with first hand experience.......You are not.............So who do you believe folks are going to think is FOS?

any gun expert is going to side with me because if the doctor is using "wound severity" as a reason to ban weapons, he is going to want to ban EVERY CENTERFIRE rifle on the market plus all shotguns

are you even aware that the M16 round is one of the lowest powered centerfire rifle cartridges going>

and do you believe that anything that makes a wound more serious than the M4 or M16 rifle should be banned?

do you understand how idiotic that far left turd's premise is?

if he claims those bullets cause the worst wounds he is lying
 
Muzzle energy of various rifle cartridges

5.56 Nato-depending on bullet-around 1280
22-250- (common woodchuck varmint rifle)-1666
.243 (popular for small deer and pronghorn)-1995
.270-common deer load-2700
30-30 Winchester (lever action deer standard)-1900
308 winchester-2700


so the "assault weapon" cartridge is well behind deer rifles
 
Just because you call him a "left wing operative" does not address or challenge the facts............You need to address the facts presented and not attack the man to win an argument

When are you RW folks going to figure out it matters not who/what political the leaning are is not an argument.........nor does not prove anything

It does not matter who he is..............but what he says.....Challenge the facts or stop wasting our time with the ad hominems.........

The fact that semi-auto rifle, high muzzle velocity, "special" bullet type and large (over 10-round) magazine capacity when combined (making the gun legally qualify as an "assault weapon") offer advantages for "mass" shooting does not mean that it is valid to use only high capacity magazines, as the first source link did, to "equate" them. It was necessary to include only use of a high capacity magazine to even get over a single digit usage rate of these "special" guns during, already rare, "mass" shootings.

The average victim count in a "mass" shooting event is barely above 5 (one more than 4 which usually the minimum). Becoming a "mass" shooter obviously does not require use of an "assault weapon" since over 90% of "mass" shooters did not use one at all. What it does tell us is that selecting a location where one can safely show up unnoticed with an "assault weapon" (concealment was likely not important) and having an ample supply of unarmed victims is the key to getting a higher victim count.
 
Canada has had registration for more than 80 years. They still have registration. They are happy with registration, just like virtually every developed nation other than the US. They also issue licenses for their firearms owners.

Might want to check your facts on that one. Here's a good place to start.

California's registration will continue to be unenforceable so long as its neighbors ignore the problem of gun violence and it refuses to strip search at every border.

Wow, and this is supposed to convince me to vote for gun registration? :shock:
 
Wrong on two counts. Registration will not stop criminals or crazies from obtaining weapons. The Black market on drugs and weapons...flows well and will continue to do so.
All registration does is penalize the good, decent Americans, all the while criminals do whatever the **** they want to.
Secondly, other nations have by far ......more violent crime than the US...We are like number 90 something, in violent crime in the world.

And.............................thousands of guns are imported illegally into the US from Mexico and other countries. They come in through our weakest link.....container ships.

You really don't have a clue!



The elite Portland Police Bureau, Gang Task Force, who gave me some of my advanced training, determined in the 1980s, that a handgun is the best entry weapon for raids on the homes and warehouses of gangs and drug dealers. For two reasons, ease in maneuverability ....and... you don't have to look for a place to set the long gun down, while you use both hands to cuff suspects.

Guy, compare apples to apples - what FIRST WORLD DEMOCRACIES have violent crime rates that are even close to our own? Heck, what Islamic first world nations - which mostly aren't real democracies - have violent crime rates to our own? Your "90th place" claim above is comparing us to ALL nations, including every crappy third-world hellhole on the planet. Apples to apples, guy.

And...do you have a reference that thousands of guns are coming to America illegally through container ships every year? And how does that compare to the quarter million firearms we smuggle into Mexico every year to the drug gangs?
 
Might want to check your facts on that one. Here's a good place to start.



Wow, and this is supposed to convince me to vote for gun registration? :shock:

Yes i know that un-restricted firearms are no longer registered. It seems that their government gave up some power with regards to gun control. They still maintain registration of restricted firearms.

That's not supposed to convince you of anything beyond the idea that the effects of gun controls are undermined when borders are open to areas without those gun controls.
 
Yes i know that un-restricted firearms are no longer registered. It seems that their government gave up some power with regards to gun control. They still maintain registration of restricted firearms.

That's not supposed to convince you of anything beyond the idea that the effects of gun controls are undermined when borders are open to areas without those gun controls.

You need to read more about why they gave up on it. Had nothing to do with what you are suggesting.
 
honest gun owners aren't leaving anyone defenseless nor are they making life safer for violent criminals

banoids are.

criminals don't have to register guns nor can you prosecute them for failing to do so. You need to learn the laws you want to impose

Ditto!

The problem with "progressive" movements is they never end...they never arrive at their goal and say "Ok, this is good... we can stop here now." No, movements must always move, therefore the goal posts must always be changed.

There is no slippery slope fallacy when the slope is greased and you're being pushed.

Sounds like a case of....Liberal Diarrhea!
 
I've heard registration being cited as a preventive measure time and again but nobody proponent of the idea has ever been able to tell me how registration would prevent a criminal act. How does tracking the criminal AFTER THE FACT prevent a damned thing and, furthermore, how much trouble has law enforcement had tracking weapons used in these mass murders WITHOUT registration?

Registration is nothing but a confiscation list for government. No registration in the world has reduced crime, the supply of guns to criminals or increased public safety.

Registration relies on criminals using a registered gun and leaving it at the crime scene. Only gun control advocates believe criminals are that stupid.

Reality is that registration is just a stepping stone to more restrictions and condition of registration. More importantly a very useful list of who has what guns so conveniently used by governments to round up firearms.
 
Last edited:
The Canadian handgun registry (restricted guns) was queried some years back and it was admitted in Parliament that then in all 64 years of operation the register had not solved one single crime. Any claim gun registry's solve or reduce crime is an outright lie better known here as a "gun control fact".

No registry in the world can be shown to be anything more than useless to citizens and a complete waste of TAX money, manpower and resources. The Canadian long gun registry literally had a village of people working on it.

I challenge gun control to produce one single successful registry and EXPLAIN why it is successful. I want to see if these liars can produce the proof they keep claiming exists.
 
Yes i know that un-restricted firearms are no longer registered. It seems that their government gave up some power with regards to gun control. They still maintain registration of restricted firearms..

Handguns and full auto. This registry has been shown to have not solved one single crime in all its years of existence. Of what use is it to CITIZENS.

That's not supposed to convince you of anything beyond the idea that the effects of gun controls are undermined when borders are open to areas without those gun controls

You are going to have to explain that and show it is true.

You may note that previously I asked you if the facts of a drug ban had no impact on your thinking. I think we can safely say such facts are immaterial to your obviously false and propagandistic statements.
 
Wanna keep those particular styles of rifles legal? I have zero problem with that..as long as all firearms are registered. If they were registered, we'd know already who gave the rifles to that man and woman in San Bernadino.
California already requires registration.

When you buy a gun from an FFL, that creates the record. When you buy a gun from a private party you have to go through an FFL, who performs the standard FBI background check, and this creates the record. If you bring guns into California from another state then you have a deadline to transfer those firearms to yourself through an FFL, which creates the record.

Registration is already in effect in California, yet there's still a gap in identification. This demonstrates that registration doesn't tell you who has what.

Registration is already in effect in California, yet this shooting occurred anyway. This demonstrates that registration does not hamper terrorists.

An assault-weapon ban is in effect in California, yet these rifles were modified anyway. This demonstrates that assault-weapon bans don't hamper terrorists.
 
Last edited:
What you're demanding is a perfect way...and because "perfect results" would be impossible, you oppose it.

What I'm supporting is something that WILL make a significant dent in the illegal gun trafficking and - by extension - our gun violence here in America. Would it stop all of it? Of course not - there is no way to achieve the "perfect results" that you seem to demand - but it WOULD make a significant dent...and many more innocent people would live instead of die each year.
Over 60% of all gun related deaths in America are suicides (source).

How would registration reduce suicide?
 
I bring this up because i hear over and over about ar-15s and aks being superior killing machines, with no purpose but to mow people down. It really sickens me the dishonesty or severe lack of knowledge from too many on the subject.

What people call assault weapons is a made up term, assault rifles are medium range, medium ammo, medium size to carbine size, and semi auto with select fire. What people dub assault weapons are the same without selective fire, which the military barely uses because it was shown to be a waste of ammo vs one well placed shot. Outside selective fire i can not see a difference, Heck i can not see a difference between them and civilian style weapons other than cosmetics.


An ar15 and a ruger mini14 both fire just as fast as the trigger is pulled, fire the same ammo, and have similiar accuracy. The ar-15 itself with a ring sight is very accurate if it is zeroed properly, but if not it is extremely difficult to shoot vs a firearm with a dovetail sight. The ar 15 has no noticeable feature that make it any more deadly than a semi auto porting rifle, heck people will whine about large capacity magazines, but they are a convenience, anyone who understands their weapon can reload with little interuption.


The ar15 ak47 etc technically all assault rifles and non selective fire variants, do not have superior killing power, infact they lose in any given area against specalized weapons. They were designed to be a jack of all trades, and master of none, which beneffitted the military by only needing one rifle per soldier to handle multiple situations, rather than issuing 3-4 weapons per soldier plus all the ammo to go with it. It can be easy to see why civilians want that, one rifle that when properly trained on can be used for close quarters self defense, medium range and long range hunting, and most shooting styles inbetween.

It's sort of the difference between a banana clip and a bolt action in a mass shooting scenario.
 
It's sort of the difference between a banana clip and a bolt action in a mass shooting scenario.

again-at what point does a honest gun owner become too dishonest to own a weapon based on capacity
 
It's sort of the difference between a banana clip and a bolt action in a mass shooting scenario.

Huh!!!! Who's life you going to save in the time it takes to change a magazine? They are standing there like ducks in shooting gallery thanks to gun control. What's going to stop these nuts as you seem to have it all worked out.
 
Back
Top Bottom