General Discussion

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)

49. They have no impact on the lethality of the firearms

Sun May 12, 2013, 10:13 PM

May 2013

In which shooting were more people killed or injured because the shooter's gun had a removable flash hider instead of a welded on flash hider?

In which shooting were more people killed or injured because the shooter's gun had an adjustable stock (4" shorter, maximum) instead of a fixed position stock?

In which shooting were more people killed or injured because the shooter's gun had a bayonet mount?

In which shooting were more people killed or injured because the shooter's gun had a pistol grip instead of a thumbhole stock?

In which shooting were more people killed or injured because the shooter's gun had a grenade launcher mount?

In which shooting were more people killed or injured because the shooter's gun had a barrel shroud instead of a free float tube?

Could the same gun kill or injure more people when placed into the third stock versus the first?

So no, it's not 'cosmetic' a la color, but it is immaterial to the lethality of the firearm.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

137 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Are attributes of different "assault weapons" merely cosmetic? [View all] jazzimov May 2013 OP

I've seen more of an issue with the term assault weapon being applied to a semi-auto. Megalo_Man May 2013 #1

I've never seen anyone use assault-weapon and "semi-auto" interchangeably. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #2

but they are gejohnston May 2013 #9

No they are not. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #12

they are not what? gejohnston May 2013 #19

Semi-automatic and assault weapon are not interchangeable terms. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #20

did you read the links? gejohnston May 2013 #21

Yeah I did. And the links don't support your argument. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #28

Then I misunderstood what you were talking about gejohnston May 2013 #29

"Assault Weapon" is a made up term, to confuse with "Assault Rifle". Hell, your MOUTH can be an .... Ghost in the Machine May 2013 #65

I always find it funny that gun nuts immediately go to the .22LR. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #72

I find it funny that anti-gunners go straight to name-calling, right anti-gun NUT?? Ghost in the Machine May 2013 #108

Thank you. Because in your slightly disturbing level of rage you have proved my point. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #109

No rage at all, dude, I just don't like people, especially strangers, making assumptions about me... Ghost in the Machine May 2013 #121

I know what anger looks like. And you are angry. Really over something completely trivial. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #127

Awww, look!! Internet Psychology 101! Have you gotten to the chapter on "Projection" yet?? Ghost in the Machine May 2013 #132

No one who gloats about owning assault weapons cares about peace. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #133

Apparently reading comprehension isn't at the top of your skill set, just like debate tactics aren't Ghost in the Machine May 2013 #137

Put anyone who indulges in that sort of juvenile nonsense on Ignore. Lizzie Poppet May 2013 #123

That is sort of a confused definition. 1-Old-Man May 2013 #6

A fully-auto weapon is a Type II weapon, which is jazzimov May 2013 #10

Wrong term. ManiacJoe May 2013 #17

Actually, there is a lot of discussion about the origin jazzimov May 2013 #23

Wrong term here too? ManiacJoe May 2013 #25

Previous thread from February: ManiacJoe May 2013 #3

You are right. Those supposed cosmetic changes significantly alter the firearm's capability. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #4

You missed the point. Jenoch May 2013 #5

No, you missed the point. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #7

You have that wrong. ManiacJoe May 2013 #8

Wrong again. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #11

You are obviously confused about the subject at hand. ManiacJoe May 2013 #13

It would seem that you are the one confused about jazzimov May 2013 #15

Gotta love the newbies. ManiacJoe May 2013 #18

Thanks! But I've been visiting this site jazzimov May 2013 #22

I know more than enough about the subject under discussion. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #16

Question TnDem May 2013 #118

Actually, many of the functions jazzimov May 2013 #14

What about the rifles Jenoch May 2013 #26

That's the reason for limiting the magazine capacity, jazzimov May 2013 #30

They never can Duckhunter935 May 2013 #31

I just did. nt jazzimov May 2013 #34

Huh? Jenoch May 2013 #38

Oh please, the gun industry and the NRA are responsible. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #43

The gun industry is Jenoch May 2013 #60

They are NRA talking points regardless of whether or not you are conscious of that fact. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #66

You have to explain to me Jenoch May 2013 #77

Are you joking? You've never even shot an assault weapon and you're on here lecturing... Gravitycollapse May 2013 #80

I have never fired an 'assault weapon'. Jenoch May 2013 #84

What exactly did the AR-15 that you fired lack that would otherwise make it an assault weapon? Gravitycollapse May 2013 #85

It was made during the AWB. Jenoch May 2013 #90

I've never seen an AR-15 that lacked a pistol grip. You sure it was an AR-15? Gravitycollapse May 2013 #98

See post #100. There are alternatives to pistol grips. n/t X_Digger May 2013 #101

Are you not aware that there were Jenoch May 2013 #106

Are you not aware pistol grips were legal under the ban? Gravitycollapse May 2013 #107

I am aware that there Jenoch May 2013 #110

I did last week if a AR10 is also considered one newmember May 2013 #91

An AR-10 is an assault weapon. It's just chambered in 7.62. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #94

Actually it's because gun cultists are attracted tp the most lethal and menacing weapons Hoyt May 2013 #61

Have you ever seen people at the range with "zombie" AR-15s? Gravitycollapse May 2013 #73

There's a gun store in Georgia that does video ads about best guns for zombies and Hoyt May 2013 #76

Even when I was really into firearms, I always thought those people were dumbasses. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #78

We are similar in that respect. Brought up around guns, but detested the yahoos Hoyt May 2013 #83

They don't alter the performance Abq_Sarah May 2013 #134

I've already the ".22 argument" up thread. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #135

Okay... Abq_Sarah May 2013 #136

I would say the answer is both 'yes' and 'no' petronius May 2013 #24

Magazine capacity may depend on the length of the cartridge FarCenter May 2013 #27

The Sandy Hook rifle was approved for ownership under the 1994 AWB ban aikoaiko May 2013 #32

This is true. HooptieWagon May 2013 #33

Uh, no. It was an AR-15 which was specifically banned. jazzimov May 2013 #36

By name AR15 was banned, but that wasn't the name of the Sandy Hook rifle. aikoaiko May 2013 #40

Although it was a Bushmaster, it was an AR-15 clone jazzimov May 2013 #67

AR-15 clones were not banned during the "ban". X_Digger May 2013 #82

No it wasn't. Its hard to accept, but that is just how flawed the AWB was. aikoaiko May 2013 #89

Yes, ban them all... HooptieWagon May 2013 #35

Which one of those "increase gun safety"? nt jazzimov May 2013 #37

Pistol grip, heat shield, adjustable stock, HooptieWagon May 2013 #129

So your point is to ban all semi auto ? newmember May 2013 #39

The point of the OP was to point out jazzimov May 2013 #44

Other than mag capacity and being a semiauto , the rest is all fluff newmember May 2013 #46

"The rest is all fluff" - the OP disproves that. Which was the point. jazzimov May 2013 #53

If you want to think so newmember May 2013 #57

Said. That would all but stop proliferation of guns. Gun cultists don't get all excited Hoyt May 2013 #62

That's what's bothering me about the OP point newmember May 2013 #71

The fascination is created by marketeers who pander to baser instincts of gun culture. Hoyt May 2013 #74

Yes I have seen the bushmaster add in threads here. newmember May 2013 #79

I hear you, but anyone who would vote for a Republican over guns is not much of a Dem. Hoyt May 2013 #81

I guess I agree but I've seen members here almost come out and say I won't newmember May 2013 #99

You seem to be a tad late to the party derby378 May 2013 #41

In answer to the question posed by the OP Crepuscular May 2013 #42

Then there's no need for them. If they're banned, you won't miss them. jazzimov May 2013 #47

They have no impact on the lethality of the firearms X_Digger May 2013 #49

Pretty much all of them where such features were used. jazzimov May 2013 #54

That's a non-answer. X_Digger May 2013 #75

A tactical or "pistol grip" stock would increase potential lethality. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #86

As compared to a thumbhole (non-pistol-gripped) stock? Bullshit. n/t X_Digger May 2013 #87

Now you're just blatantly moving the goal posts. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #92

Read post #49 again. I moved nothing. X_Digger May 2013 #93

Still trying to move those posts. Respond to what I said not what you wanted me to say. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #95

The fact that you didn't notice me mentioning thumbhole stocks isn't my problem, it's yours. X_Digger May 2013 #100

When gun industry pricks try to sneak around it, just amend the goddamn law. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #102

They are all *not* pistol grips. X_Digger May 2013 #104

Ha ha... TnDem May 2013 #120

Thumbhole TnDem May 2013 #96

I'm not arguing the efficacy of the 94 AWB. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #97

Untrue TnDem May 2013 #103

Yep, no functional difference... Gravitycollapse May 2013 #105

It's obvious... TnDem May 2013 #116

So you would ban thumbhole stocks? AnotherMcIntosh May 2013 #111

Silly conclusion and certainly not justification for banning them. Crepuscular May 2013 #50

"Just out of curiosity, have you ever fired a gun before?" jazzimov May 2013 #58

It seems to be the case that gun control advocates in here know more about firearms. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #88

What about this video TnDem May 2013 #119

No, I'm sorry but it's not a false statement Crepuscular May 2013 #126

Any ergonomic feature of any firarm is intended to make it more effective. rrneck May 2013 #45

Thank you. That is a discussion we should be having. nt jazzimov May 2013 #48

a more relevant question might be Crepuscular May 2013 #52

Then why pay for them? jazzimov May 2013 #55

Do any of those features come with a premium? Recursion May 2013 #114

For the same reason Crepuscular May 2013 #124

Gun culture loves to shoot all day without reloading while relaxing in recliner. Hoyt May 2013 #63

Arrogant assholes like to shoot off their mouths with computer keyboards without thinking about it. rrneck May 2013 #68

Anger and guns don't mix well. Better lock yours up for awhile. Hoyt May 2013 #69

If I were angry you'd know it. rrneck May 2013 #70

I was wondering how many posts it would take for you... Lizzie Poppet May 2013 #122

yes and no Deep13 May 2013 #51

If they're only cosmetic, why are gun nuts so gung-ho for them? Hugabear May 2013 #56

For the AR platform it's ergonomics... Deep13 May 2013 #59

Don't forget it's what a generation of vets trained on Recursion May 2013 #115

Good point. Gun marketers know what excites the yahoos that covet lethal weapons. Hoyt May 2013 #64

Well, the pistol grip makes a rifle safer, which is why I think they should be mandated if anything Recursion May 2013 #113

Some make the gun safer and more accurate; others are entirely unused Recursion May 2013 #112

Finally.... TnDem May 2013 #117

If the features that make them "assault weapons" are functional, they should be regulated. baldguy May 2013 #125

What would be the point of regulating them? ManiacJoe May 2013 #128

of all those, the collapsible stocks are the most useful ileus May 2013 #130

this thread shows how emotional the debate over gun control is 0rganism May 2013 #131