So what makes assault weapons so deadly (1 Viewer)

[beerftw]

I have done a thread like this before quite a while ago, but it is long buried and there is a renewed hyteria over assault weapons.

To clarify, assault weapons are a made up term, to describe weapons with a military appearance. Assault rifles are either fully auto or have select fire capability, like semi and burst or auto and semi. Assault rifles are not legal to the public except preban.


What is deemed assault weapons are semi automatic rifles with cosmetic features, like a collapsable stock, a pistol grip, or detachable magazine. Despite hysterical belief, assault rifles and weapons were not designed to kill as many people as fast as possible, they do not just mow people down in the military.

The choice for the assault rifle was medium firepower, medium accuracy, medium weight, and medium rounds meant more rounds to carry over heavy rounds, as combat was unpredictable, and less weight equals more moblity. It is a jack of all trades master of none, which the military favors since one rifle can do it all even if not as efficient as other rifles, since no soldier wants to carry 4 weapons and 4 sets of ammo.


So what is the big stink against these rifles, is there any evidence they are so much more deadly than hunting rifles, or pure propoganda?

 

[MACS-24]

What makes them so deadly? The agenda of those people throwing around this term in the civilian world.

 

[LaylaWindu]

I have done a thread like this before quite a while ago, but it is long buried and there is a renewed hyteria over assault weapons.

To clarify, assault weapons are a made up term, to describe weapons with a military appearance. Assault rifles are either fully auto or have select fire capability, like semi and burst or auto and semi. Assault rifles are not legal to the public except preban.


What is deemed assault weapons are semi automatic rifles with cosmetic features, like a collapsable stock, a pistol grip, or detachable magazine. Despite hysterical belief, assault rifles and weapons were not designed to kill as many people as fast as possible, they do not just mow people down in the military.

The choice for the assault rifle was medium firepower, medium accuracy, medium weight, and medium rounds meant more rounds to carry over heavy rounds, as combat was unpredictable, and less weight equals more moblity. It is a jack of all trades master of none, which the military favors since one rifle can do it all even if not as efficient as other rifles, since no soldier wants to carry 4 weapons and 4 sets of ammo.


So what is the big stink against these rifles, is there any evidence they are so much more deadly than hunting rifles, or pure propaganda?

No, there isn't any evidence of that, especially for the made up term and perception of what an assault weapon is. Yes it is pure propaganda.

 

[Lutherf]

As you all know, when you take this rifle

add a black stock with a pistol grip, a rail and an ACOG the bullets suddenly become incendiary, exploding, heat seeking missiles of mass murder. On top of that anyone who has never had their hands on a rifle before instantly becomes a top tier marksman inflamed with hatred for mankind at large.:roll:

And for those who still don't understand, both pictures show the same model rifle. Both rifles function exactly the same way. The differences are primarily cosmetic. It's kind of like putting new rims, a paint job and a racing seat in your 2005 Celica without touching the motor and suspension.

 

[beerftw]

As you all know, when you take this rifle

add a black stock with a pistol grip, a rail and an ACOG the bullets suddenly become incendiary, exploding, heat seeking missiles of mass murder. On top of that anyone who has never had their hands on a rifle before instantly becomes a top tier marksman inflamed with hatred for mankind at large.:roll:

And for those who still don't understand, both pictures show the same model rifle. Both rifles function exactly the same way. The differences are primarily cosmetic. It's kind of like putting new rims, a paint job and a racing seat in your 2005 Celica without touching the motor and suspension.

Maybe just maybe all hysteria and little to no fact. But here is a funny picture emphasizing hysteria over the ar.

 

[jet57]

I have done a thread like this before quite a while ago, but it is long buried and there is a renewed hyteria over assault weapons.

To clarify, assault weapons are a made up term, to describe weapons with a military appearance. Assault rifles are either fully auto or have select fire capability, like semi and burst or auto and semi. Assault rifles are not legal to the public except preban.


What is deemed assault weapons are semi automatic rifles with cosmetic features, like a collapsable stock, a pistol grip, or detachable magazine. Despite hysterical belief, assault rifles and weapons were not designed to kill as many people as fast as possible, they do not just mow people down in the military.

The choice for the assault rifle was medium firepower, medium accuracy, medium weight, and medium rounds meant more rounds to carry over heavy rounds, as combat was unpredictable, and less weight equals more moblity. It is a jack of all trades master of none, which the military favors since one rifle can do it all even if not as efficient as other rifles, since no soldier wants to carry 4 weapons and 4 sets of ammo.


So what is the big stink against these rifles, is there any evidence they are so much more deadly than hunting rifles, or pure propoganda?

Well, you said it yourself:

The choice for the assault rifle was medium firepower, medium accuracy, medium weight, and medium rounds meant more rounds to carry over heavy rounds, as combat was unpredictable, and less weight equals more moblity

They are combat weapons. Terrorists in this country use them for combat.

 

[beerftw]

Well, you said it yourself:

They are combat weapons. Terrorists in this country use them for combat.

How is medium everything a combat weapons? The weapon was chosen by the military because it was versatile, not because it was superior at anything. Soldiers can not have 4 weapons and all the ammo with them when they can be issued a jack of all trades master of none weapon.

Most of the militaries effectiveness with the weapon is through training, a bolt action 3006 has more range, accuracy and stopping power, a shotgun would actually kill more people close range, a handgun is more concealable, etc. It was chosen because it could be adapted, not because it is some superior killing machine.

 

[Tigerace117]

I have done a thread like this before quite a while ago, but it is long buried and there is a renewed hyteria over assault weapons.

To clarify, assault weapons are a made up term, to describe weapons with a military appearance. Assault rifles are either fully auto or have select fire capability, like semi and burst or auto and semi. Assault rifles are not legal to the public except preban.


What is deemed assault weapons are semi automatic rifles with cosmetic features, like a collapsable stock, a pistol grip, or detachable magazine. Despite hysterical belief, assault rifles and weapons were not designed to kill as many people as fast as possible, they do not just mow people down in the military.

The choice for the assault rifle was medium firepower, medium accuracy, medium weight, and medium rounds meant more rounds to carry over heavy rounds, as combat was unpredictable, and less weight equals more moblity. It is a jack of all trades master of none, which the military favors since one rifle can do it all even if not as efficient as other rifles, since no soldier wants to carry 4 weapons and 4 sets of ammo.


So what is the big stink against these rifles, is there any evidence they are so much more deadly than hunting rifles, or pure propoganda?

Are we talking actual assault rifles or AR-15s and the like?

 

[TurtleDude]

Well, you said it yourself:

They are combat weapons. Terrorists in this country use them for combat.

how many lies are you going to spew on this issue They are not combat weapons. Terrorist attacks on unarmed civilians is not combat.

 

[TurtleDude]

How is medium everything a combat weapons? The weapon was chosen by the military because it was versatile, not because it was superior at anything. Soldiers can not have 4 weapons and all the ammo with them when they can be issued a jack of all trades master of none weapon.

Most of the militaries effectiveness with the weapon is through training, a bolt action 3006 has more range, accuracy and stopping power, a shotgun would actually kill more people close range, a handgun is more concealable, etc. It was chosen because it could be adapted, not because it is some superior killing machine.

The bannerrhoid movement is impervious to reality or the truth. Its a waste of time trying to edify a group that is based upon lies and disinformation

 

[notquiteright]

I have done a thread like this before quite a while ago, but it is long buried and there is a renewed hyteria over assault weapons. To clarify, assault weapons are a made up term, to describe weapons with a military appearance. Assault rifles are either fully auto or have select fire capability, like semi and burst or auto and semi. Assault rifles are not legal to the public except preban. What is deemed assault weapons are semi automatic rifles with cosmetic features, like a collapsable stock, a pistol grip, or detachable magazine. Despite hysterical belief, assault rifles and weapons were not designed to kill as many people as fast as possible, they do not just mow people down in the military. The choice for the assault rifle was medium firepower, medium accuracy, medium weight, and medium rounds meant more rounds to carry over heavy rounds, as combat was unpredictable, and less weight equals more moblity. It is a jack of all trades master of none, which the military favors since one rifle can do it all even if not as efficient as other rifles, since no soldier wants to carry 4 weapons and 4 sets of ammo. So what is the big stink against these rifles, is there any evidence they are so much more deadly than hunting rifles, or pure propoganda?

Having bet my life on my old M16A1 as a real deal grunt- not NO GO mechanic allow me-

To clarify, assault rifle is as made-up a term just like assault weapon. (Every military rifle was used to assault someone ) the term was to designate the round fired more so than any other characteristic. The military had select fire, mag fed weapons before the use of an intermediate round- more powerful than pistol, not as powerful as a rifle round- was the key to a new weapon. Assault weapon is the term for the semi version of the AR.

What you call cosmetic features are actually extremely useful ones- the ability to 'drop and slop' high cap mags is highly desirable and not a feature on many 'sporting rifles'. (if not then the 8 round enbloc of the garand would still be in use) Reducing overall length is quite handy for concealing a weapon, using in a vehicle, etc. Pistol grip can be considered 'cosmetic' through many would disagree as now pistol grip bolt guns are quite the rage as more 'traditional' looking thumb hole stocks. Those using them on civilian bolt guns claim a far more stable grip on the rifle under conditions less than 'bluebird' range days.

As a former grunt I'll disagree with your opinion assault rifles/weapons are not to mow down people as fast as possible. The low recoil, inline thrust, high cap mags make the AR/AW series the penultimate mower out there. The initial success of the German WWII versions on the Eastern Front gave the greatly outnumbered German Infantry a much needed boost in firepower to help negate Russian human wave attacks that swamped thinly manned bolt gun defenses.

If you'd ever served as a grunt you'd know we didn't carry less weight, we carried MORE ROUNDS. Light Infantry still moves at damned near the same speed the Civil War line Infantry, or German landsers. We carried MORE weight than WWII Dogfaces (as improved junk bearing equipt allows it)- what it does mean is we carry more rounds per pound. The military in it's infinite wisdom thinks anything to reduce weight is not to lighten the load a grunt is burdened with but rather allow more crap to be hung, strung, or clung on the unfortunate motherless pud knocker.

I'd call the AR/AW series far more than master of none- it is infact master of most and been our primary individual weapon for longer than any other weapon in the smokeless era.

Short of a gigawatt laser an AR type weapon is my idea of a 'battle buddy', and not for any 'cosmetic' reasons... eace

 

[BretJ]

Well, you said it yourself:

They are combat weapons. Terrorists in this country use them for combat.

I asked you before to tell me what makes one of these an assault weapon and I still await a reply..

I will even help you out... .

They both fire the same cartridge and both use the same magazine...again, why would one be called an assault weapon or weapon of war? Double dog dare you...

 

[JANFU]

I have done a thread like this before quite a while ago, but it is long buried and there is a renewed hyteria over assault weapons.

To clarify, assault weapons are a made up term, to describe weapons with a military appearance. Assault rifles are either fully auto or have select fire capability, like semi and burst or auto and semi. Assault rifles are not legal to the public except preban.


What is deemed assault weapons are semi automatic rifles with cosmetic features, like a collapsable stock, a pistol grip, or detachable magazine. Despite hysterical belief, assault rifles and weapons were not designed to kill as many people as fast as possible, they do not just mow people down in the military.

The choice for the assault rifle was medium firepower, medium accuracy, medium weight, and medium rounds meant more rounds to carry over heavy rounds, as combat was unpredictable, and less weight equals more moblity. It is a jack of all trades master of none, which the military favors since one rifle can do it all even if not as efficient as other rifles, since no soldier wants to carry 4 weapons and 4 sets of ammo.


So what is the big stink against these rifles, is there any evidence they are so much more deadly than hunting rifles, or pure propoganda?

Rapid fire, 30 rd mags?

 

[Beaudreaux]

Well, you said it yourself:

They are combat weapons. Terrorists in this country use them for combat.

They aren't combat weapons. The US military doesn't use them in combat. Have you ever been in combat? If so, you should know better than to make such a false claim.

The few firearms you can buy as a civilian that are also used in actual combat by the actual military, are either handguns, or bolt action rifles. The use of the word "combat" is just the latest in the unending inaccurate use (aka, lies) of words to describe rifles that the gun banners do not like. Other examples are "automatic weapon," "assault rifle," and of course... "extremely deadly' as if bullets from a semiauto rifle is more deadly than those from any other firearm. In fact, a Chevy Truck in the hands of a drunk driver is just as deadly, but we don't see demonstrations outside the offices of Triple A (AAA - American Automobile Association) like we do outside the NRA's offices.

Again, they're not combat weapons. They have been modified to comply with civilian use laws.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Rapid fire, 30 rd mags?

What is rapid? Every trigger pull?
What semi-auto can't receive 30 rd mags?

I smell ignorance...

 

[MAGAnificent]

I have done a thread like this before quite a while ago, but it is long buried and there is a renewed hyteria over assault weapons.

To clarify, assault weapons are a made up term, to describe weapons with a military appearance. Assault rifles are either fully auto or have select fire capability, like semi and burst or auto and semi. Assault rifles are not legal to the public except preban.


What is deemed assault weapons are semi automatic rifles with cosmetic features, like a collapsable stock, a pistol grip, or detachable magazine. Despite hysterical belief, assault rifles and weapons were not designed to kill as many people as fast as possible, they do not just mow people down in the military.

The choice for the assault rifle was medium firepower, medium accuracy, medium weight, and medium rounds meant more rounds to carry over heavy rounds, as combat was unpredictable, and less weight equals more moblity. It is a jack of all trades master of none, which the military favors since one rifle can do it all even if not as efficient as other rifles, since no soldier wants to carry 4 weapons and 4 sets of ammo.


So what is the big stink against these rifles, is there any evidence they are so much more deadly than hunting rifles, or pure propoganda?

It is the only real symbol the left thinks it has. They know they are not going to win the 2nd amendment argument by screaming and ranting about normal handguns, shotguns and rifles. They have tried that many times and failed. Their modern boogieman is the assault style weapons like the AR-15. They think if they can fool enough ignorant Americans into thinking it's a military assault weapon, then they might actually gain some ground on weakening the 2nd amendment with gun control. They are hoping that most Americans will not learn the difference between an assault weapon (fully automatic) or an assault style weapon(semi-automatic. They are under the impression that because an assault style weapon looks mean, that will get the job done for them.

 

[JANFU]

What is rapid? Every trigger pull?
What semi-auto can't receive 30 rd mags?

I smell ignorance...

Nope- 30 rd mags, what is the need?

 

[Goshin]

Nope- 30 rd mags, what is the need?

I don't have to prove a need. Constitutional right.


If you want to infringe on it, YOU have to prove societal necessity, and that said ban would actually achieve a worthwhile result.


Which isn't happening. If banning a firearm prevents it from being used in mass slaughter, explain the automatic rifles used in the Charlie Hebdo shooting, which were illegal in France and most of surrounding Western Europe.


Explain how this is necessary to society when the following is true...

 

[JANFU]

I don't have to prove a need. Constitutional right.


If you want to infringe on it, YOU have to prove societal necessity, and that said ban would actually achieve a worthwhile result.


Which isn't happening. If banning a firearm prevents it from being used in mass slaughter, explain the automatic rifles used in the Charlie Hebdo shooting, which were illegal in France and most of surrounding Western Europe.


Explain how this is necessary to society when the following is true...


View attachment 67203007

I was not referring to rights, I was referring to need.

 

[MickeyW]

Well, you said it yourself:

They are combat weapons. Terrorists in this country use them for combat.

The M16 or M4 are combat weapons, the AR15 isn't. It's a hunting/competition/home defense weapon.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Nope- 30 rd mags, what is the need?

I was not referring to rights, I was referring to need.

What is the need for the standard capacity mag? In a free country, must a man need a thing in order to own it?

You have a slave's mentality.

 

[MickeyW]

Well, you said it yourself:

They are combat weapons. Terrorists in this country use them for combat.

Not really. 911.. no...they used planes. Boston.. no...they used pressure cookers. OK City....no......they used a big bomb. San Berdoo..no.....they were shot to pieces with little or no return fire. Orlando.....no combat at all!

Get real jet! Tell the truth. Stop with the Nanny state mentality!

how many lies are you going to spew on this issue They are not combat weapons. Terrorist attacks on unarmed civilians is not combat.

Exactly.

The bannerrhoid movement is impervious to reality or the truth. Its a waste of time trying to edify a group that is based upon lies and disinformation

Misdirection....they thrive on it.

Rapid fire, 30 rd mags?

So what?

Nope- 30 rd mags, what is the need?

Let me count the ways......................................................Gangs, home invasions(2-4 people normally), attacking wolf packs, attacking grizzly bears,...or the best one....just for the fun of shooting as many rounds as you want.

I have several 50 round magazines...so what of it?

 

[MickeyW]

What is the need for the standard capacity mag? In a free country, must a man need a thing in order to own it?

You have a slave's mentality.

Exactly.... a slave's mentality! I can have a 700 horsepower street machine if I so choose. I suppose certain people would say that was excessive. But it's a free country....not a slave's country!

 

[jet57]

I asked you before to tell me what makes one of these an assault weapon and I still await a reply.. View attachment 67203004View attachment 67203005

I will even help you out... .

They both fire the same cartridge and both use the same magazine...again, why would one be called an assault weapon or weapon of war? Double dog dare you...

Well, uh... uh... th-the one on, on top looks ugly -an and sscary....

Its design and purpose dude.

 

[jet57]

Rapid fire, 30 rd mags?

Uh - "clips" - okay?