CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:53
Arguments:41
Total Votes:56
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 What makes an Assault style rifle more dangerous than any other firearm? (34)

Debate Creator

smilinbobs(524) pic



What makes an Assault style rifle more dangerous than any other firearm?

The AR 15 has been receiving a lot of attention these days and there is a big push to outlaw assault rifles. I am wondering why the public feels that these guns are more dangerous than say a Glock 40 or M1A or any other style of gun.
Add New Argument

Nothing makes "assault-style rifles" any more dangerous than the generic pistol or hunting rifle. You might say "What about the fire rate?", to which I would respond "What about it?". Above all, guns are made to kill. Nothing can change that.

True but don't forget the fact that they can kill multiple people at once.

1 point

So can a semi auto, if you can pull the trigger fast enough or if you add a bump stock.

smilinbobs(524) Disputed
1 point

So could a single shot shotgun, a bolt action, a revolver, Even a car has been used to kill multiple people at once.

2 points

Nothing, because there’s no such thing as an “assault style” rifle. This term has been used to blanket cover a lot of semi-automatics for the purposes of legislation. There’s absolutely no consistent, objective standard for what makes a gun “assault style”. The problem that 2nd amendment advocates have is that its way too flexible, and could really be applied to any semi-automatic long rifle.

The only type of rifle that’s really QUANTIFIABLY more dangerous than any other is one with select fire capability (semi auto to full

auto).

Many try to say that assault is in the name when arguing this. The AR in AR-15 doesn't stand for assault rifle, it stands for ArmaLite Rifle after the company it was developed by.

Nothing. To say a ban on “assault weapons”(aka semi auto rifles) is banning them cause they’re scary looking. If you look up machine pistols WHICH NOBODY CARES ABOUT CAUSE THEY ARE LABELED AS PISTOLS you will find a whole bunch of pistols with semi/full auto capabilities. The two differences? Size/look, and range. Thought the range part is still pretty invalid because your killing in a public place. You dont need long range unless your a sniper.

Guardiantaco(2) Disputed
1 point

Saying a ban on assault weapons is just saying a ban on military weapons ( weapons made for the military) which would include those weapons. What would be allowed is hunting guns and other sport like weapons( with some weapons added for self defense) there was a shooting after parkland where the shooter had a pistol and did not kill anyone and was taken down by a resource officer. So clearly there is real action beetween weapons and casualties.

JimboShrimp(25) Disputed
4 points

There is no objective line for what is and isn't a weapon made "for the military". If you want to say it's only the few specific models they actively use, then why not ban the other 2,000 or so models that are exactly equivalent in function and power?

The parkland resource officer failed to take down Cruz not because of his weapon, but because he ran outside and hid.

Not to mention which banning """military-style""" weapons is just as bad as banning anything else. The entire point of the 2nd amendment is military equivalency in the case of a tyrannical state.

Amarel(4065) Disputed
3 points

What would be allowed is hunting guns and other sport like

High powered semi-auto hunting rifles are functionally the same as rifles that look scarier, such as the AR-15. The difference is in aesthetics. More and more hunting rifles are adopting feature similar to the AR due to popularity.

there was a shooting after parkland where the shooter had a pistol and did not kill anyone and was taken down by a resource officer.

That shooter killed a girl, injured a boy, and then shot himself. Incidentally, the most lethal school shooting in US history was at Virginia Tech and was carried out with pistols.

smilinbobs(524) Disputed
2 points

AR 15 are not a military weapon. They are nothing more than a semiautomatic rifle with fancy accessories to make it look like a military weapon. It shoots one bullet at a time. Military weapons have the capability to shooting multiple rounds with a single trigger pull.

The AR 15 is a small caliber .223 which makes it much less deadly than a .30 caliber hunting rifle or the 7.62mm military rounds. People should be educated about the things they are fighting for I can answer any gun questions you may have. I see that you are misinformed by the media as are the many people fighting to ban a great firearm which can be legally and effectively used for hunting mainly small game.

smilinbobs(524) Disputed
1 point

The difference between the two shootings had nothing to do with the weapon used and everything to do with the actions of the person who was charged with the protection of the students. In parkland the deputy sheriff who was charged with protecting the children did not take his role seriously and left without confronting the gunman. In the other shooting the security officer confronted the gunman with deadly force and ended the conflict before it got worse.

2 points

The AR 15 has been receiving a lot of attention these days and there is a big push to outlaw assault rifles.

Ignorance.

The AR-15 is SEMI-automatic. That just means the operator does not need to work the action to expel the spent casing and seat another round in the chamber. The AR-15, like every other non-automatic firearm, only shoots one round per trigger pull. There are many semi-automatic firearms, both rifles and handguns. At close distances (for example:in a theater, dance club, or classroom) the AR-15 has no real advantage over a handgun in terms of lethal force.

The jump from AR-15 to assault rifle indicates clearly that many of these people simply do not know what they are talking about. This includes law-makers who include semi-automatic with pistol grip and barrel shroud in legal definitions of the term assault rifle, all in an effort to make it sound like any of these are military grade weapons. THEY ARE NOT.

Actual assault rifles are fully automatic, and fire many more rounds per minute than any semi-automatic could. This is why soldiers use them; fully automatic rifles are an advantage in an assault.

No modern military would EVER use the AR-15 or any similar rifle as an assault weapon. They simply cannot fire fast enough to be used effectively in combat.

1 point

Assault Rifles or ARs are weapons designed for military combat. The U.S gives arms its troops with ARs because the are fast firing weapons that can tame down a lot of people. Compared to a hand gun that shoots slower and is not a military weapon but a weapon for self defense sport and police use.

smilinbobs(524) Disputed
3 points

You have been grossly misinformed by the liberal media. The AR-15 is a small caliber rifle that is only capable of firing one shot each time you pull the trigger. Unlike military weapons which have the capability of shooting more than one round with the pull of the trigger. As for rate of fire it is completely dependent on the trigger finger of the shooter. But any semiautomatic handgun can be fired as fast as an AR-15. There are people who can fire revolvers almost as fast as an AR-15. The reality of the situation is this, if the push is to outlaw one type of gun then you are saying that it is better to shoot people with a shotgun or a pistol or a large caliber rifle than an AR-15. There is a logic fail here. There are millions of AR-15's in the US and outlawing them only makes it so that outlaws own them. Is that what we want?

excon(8967) Disputed
1 point

Hello smiley,

You’re right. A gun, is a gun, is a gun. Banning one and not others is mental masturbation. It FEELS good, but nothing happens. The second amendment has outlived its usefulness.

excon

PS> Outlawing POT certainly turned peaceful loving people into outlaws. Where were you then?

marcusmoon(540) Clarified
2 points

G-taco,

Just a little clarification for any readers who are not familiar enough with guns to understand what you are talking about.

Assault Rifles or ARs are weapons designed for military combat.

Bear in mind that AR in AR-15 does not mean Assault Rifle. The AR stands for ArmaLite Rifle.

No military would send troops into combat with AR-15s. Because they are only semi-automatic, they fire too slowly.

Compared to a hand gun that shoots slower and is not a military weapon but a weapon for self defense sport and police use.

The AR-15 is semi-automatic, just like semi-automatic handguns (the Glock 9mm, for example.)

The AR-15, just like these handguns, fires only one round per trigger pull, and just like these handguns, the mechanism automatically ejects the spent round and seats a fresh round in the chamber. This happens fast enough that any semi-automatic firearm fires at the rate that the operator squeezes the trigger.

As such, the AR-15 fires no faster than any of the Glock handguns carried by police officers.

1 point

There is a HUGE difference between sub-sonic and standard (now) military weapons. These high speed, mostly tiny diameter bullets hit a target and begin to tumble, which sends them off in different directions tearing through multiple organs and rendering them irreparable! A standard pistol bullet usually goes straight in and hits what it hits!

Saying a standard pistol load is just as damaging as a smaller military load with a MUCH larger powder charge and a HUGE magazine is just ludicrous!

outlaw60(13174) Disputed
2 points

Crazy AL speaks again with some stupid nonsense !!!!!!!!!

A standard pistol bullet usually goes straight in and hits what it hits!

Saying a standard pistol load is just as damaging as a smaller military load with a MUCH larger powder charge and a HUGE magazine is just ludicrous!

Where do you come up with the knowledge you have AL without any information to backup your Complete Stupidity?

smilinbobs(524) Disputed
1 point

Al, Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Subsonic is a specialty ammunition mainly used with a silencer at close range to eliminate the sonic crack which is almost as loud as the gun discharge. The bullets are going too slow to be effective long range. They are not very good in semiautomatic rifles because they don't have enough powder to reset the next cartridge.

Just for clarification getting shot with a .223/5.56 from an AR with the higher velocity would just pass straight through causing less damage than a much larger 30/40 caliber which most handguns are. The handgun ammo is heavier and designed for stopping power which mean causing the most damage possible. Please research this and you will find that you have been grossly misinformed intentionally by a self serving political movement.

Amarel(4065) Clarified
1 point

getting shot with a .223/5.56 from an AR with the higher velocity would just pass straight through

Not so. The hydrostatic shock of the high velocity round coupled with the hollow point commonly used in a .223 round will do significant damage to a much larger area than the diameter of the bullet. For this reason, handgun rounds are now being designed in such a way to provide greater hydrostatic shock at their lower velocities.

1 point

a) Speed and quantity of deadly rounds unleashed

b) A subset of the human population relishing those weapons is horrid (not all, just a subset, a very vocal and motivated subset with agendas like white supremacy or xenophobia)

That's pretty much it.

Before you lecture me on guns note I have a permit to carry. I'm not anti gun. but I'm also not anti gun control. I believe public safety is not precluded by the 2nd Amendment.

Amarel(4065) Disputed
1 point

a) Speed and quantity of deadly rounds unleashed

Most semi-auto hunting rifles with magazines have an option for extended magazines, giving them the same potential for speed and quantity.

b) A subset of the human population relishing those weapons is horrid (not all, just a subset, a very vocal and motivated subset with agendas like white supremacy or xenophobia)

I don't know how you distinguish the xenophobic and racist subset who relish these guns from the larger group of regular people who relish these guns. The AR style is so popular, that more and more companies are borrowing various features to add to their own hunting rifles, such as synthetic body and pistol grip.

smilinbobs(524) Disputed
1 point

Any semiautomatic pistol or rifle can fire at comparable rates. It is only as fast as the operator can pull the trigger. That is why the military uses fully automatic weapons not AR-15's. Anyone can have as many rounds as they can carry on them it takes a fraction of a second to change magazines so assault style rifles have no advantage in speed or # of rounds carried.

Part of the popularity of the AR-15 is that the government threatens to outlaw it. Under Obama there were over a million sold just because there was a threat that it would become illegal to purchase one. That was the reason that I purchased mine. Now that I have been shooting it I have found that it is a great all purpose firearm. If I could only have one firearm it would be my AR-15. The wife and kids like that it doesn't have a lot of recoil. It is accurate, dependable, light weight, very portable. I understand the reason it is so popular.

Grenache(6104) Clarified
1 point

Then enjoy. But you write calmly and intelligently so know that when I talk about a small subset of people we really feel uncomfortable about having them then I'm clearly not talking about you. And then I ask you, do YOU feel good about white supremacists and xenophobes and various radical fringe of society having the AR-15? Do you?

outlaw60(13174) Disputed
1 point

Do What ?

Before you lecture me on guns note I have a permit to carry. I'm not anti gun. but I'm also not anti gun control. I believe public safety is not precluded by the 2nd Amendment.

Second Amendment does not give you the right to own a firearm Dummy ?

Grenache(6104) Disputed
1 point

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

You're not in the USA, Outlaw. Don't call me dummy about something that isn't even your Constitution.

The only thing that makes it more dangerous is magazine capacity which could easily be controlled. I own an AR-15 myself and it is very fun to take to the range. People are over obsessed about the image. Even Soldiers and Marines are taught to leave the 3 round burst switch alone on the M16 and M4 bc they teach accuracy over wasting ammo. It is not a weapon that was intended for mass spraying. It is moderately useful at close range, very effective at mid range, and can still pull off fairly accurate shots at long ranges. I do believe that safety courses should be required for any new weapons purchase however. Having been in the military I do notice the differences in how "some" civilians and former military practice gun safety and these civilians could use some training and guidance. In the military you earn your right to wield this weapon through much practice, training, and safety instruction, civilians simply buy it.