Pistol classifications

tumblr_mfuwr35hG91qbwappo1_r1_500.gif (90 KB)


| Send to Facebook | Send To Twitter
  • Leave A Comment

    Subscribe
    Notify of
    45 Comments
    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments
    MalcoveMagnesia

    Makes no difference. Ban all weapons, overturn the Second Amendment and let’s rely upon our wise & benevolent government to protect us.

    MonkeyHitman

    Logic: Those differences does make a weapon more deadly! if it didn’t they wouldn’t have been made *facepalm*

    Wetwrks

    Oh…and ergonomics doesn’t play a part in any of this. Personal desire to have something that looks different from what everyone else has doesn’t play a part in this.

    2 guns shooting the same bullet at the same speed produce the same result. How they look doesn’t change the end effect one bit.

    MonkeyHitman

    I’m unsure if you’re dumb or stupid. The only thing im commenting about is the sentence about the differences are mostly superficial, which i find that it’s bullshit even though they said mostly. Logically speaking those modifications do play a role as a variable to the outcome of the performance of the gun and the user. With the polymer frame it’s lighter and you feel a bit less recoil. A collapsible stock can give advantage to different body frames of the user. a flash suppressor…by definition should explain itself. A pistol grip can help those who have bigger or smaller… Read more »

    Stonestead

    A lighter gun provides less recoil? Have you ever shot a Glock? When the magazine is full it’s a good, solid weapon with a quick re-acquision time. As you shoot, the magazine starts to empty and the gun becomes lighter and the kick increases as does re-acquision time.

    bobo

    don’t bother making sense to these dumb fucks. because your average libtard “knows everything” even if they have no clue what the fuck they’re talking about.

    Lou R

    Well, most of those differences are for reasons other than being deadly. The adjustable stock is partly for ease of storage and partly so that weapons are interchangeable between different people. The “black polymer frame” is just that. Plastic. Reducing the cost and improving the ability to repair the item does not make it more deadly. The pistol grip is just a comfort thing. A lot of target shooting rifles use a pistol grip to. The flash hider, sure I will grant you that is mostly a combat item. But don’t be confused to think that it hides the flash… Read more »

    Wildman7316

    As yet another example using a Ruger Product, my Son has a 10/22 than in just a few minutes using only a Screw Driver and and Allen Wrench, he can turn his Rifle from the Tin Can Plinker known and loved by Millions into something that in those States which still have Assault Weapons Bans will get ME Years in prison.

    Would somebody please explain to me how ANY thing used as a Weapon is NOT an “Assault Weapon”?

    GreedyDrunk

    What happened at that school was a tragedy, but the reason why it has caused such a response is because its not something that happens very often. Using that tragedy as a leaping off point for gun control is not very logical (Nor is calling for a gun in every teachers hand). If the USA really wanted to do something about gun deaths they would focus on Mental Health and Poverty. More than half of gun deaths are suicide and a certain number of homicides would also be committed by troubled individuals. The problem with fixing mental health issues is… Read more »

    bob

    this right here.

    MonkeyHitman

    It’s not only Mental health issues, it goes deeper than that. It can go as far as how the culture of the american society is, XXL food for this, 20 pills for that headache, miracle solution for that. I cannot really blame the people for thinking like that. The amount of shit the media is feeding the society for centuries. Its been shaping and forming the perception of everyday life of an american, to a blissful dream.

    EuroUSA

    That’s just pure dishabille bullshit. A beguiled argument that when weighed out amounts to just the same disingenuous tin god defence. I’m a Marine vet, pro-gun and raised around guns all my life; took quiet a few “bad” people out and I have problems dealing with that today… that’s another story. I never slept on a bed until I went into the military for fear a stray bullet finding me; sleeping each night to sound of gun-fire; my sister and I walked past bodies on our way to school, yeah – that’s the America I went to go fight for.… Read more »

    GreedyDrunk

    We are probably going to agree to disagree, I don’t blame the gun and I certainly don’t blame one over the other because one looks aggressive. I put the blame on the cultural problems in the USA such as poverty, mental health, drug trafficking, immigration ( both legal and illegal), distrust in the government and minorities, the list can go on and on. I am sorry to hear you grew up in less than encouraging living conditions, but it sounds more like a poverty issue where gun violence was the result of poor living conditions not the cause of. Again… Read more »

    EuroUSA

    You’re right we will disagree on one main factor in this equation. Here in Scandinavia when we have a mass killing or deaths by guns/firearms (such as our infamous Norway madman) – our Parliaments & Assemblies do one thing different – they call emergency sessions that tighten the laws/rules to removing more firearms off the streets. We aren’t immune to having all the same problems with poverty, hard line narcotics, alcohol, mental illness, minorities, etc. – but we don’t have people finding guns to relieve the anger and frustration. I’ve lived under both conditions and seen it from both sides… Read more »

    Lou R

    I agree with you about the notion that if these sorts of weapons were not around they would not be misused. Personally, I would not have put in the 2nd amendment. Unfortunately it is one of those cases of shutting the barn door after the horses have left. Simple fact is the US is already awash with guns. Even if all production and importation were to cease there will never be a shortage. Also, simple ground truth is that the 2nd is the law of the land and is one that cannot be changed short of revolution (even if just… Read more »

    bobo

    you’ve been sucking too much euro dick there buddy. go fuck yourself and stay the fuck out of america’s problems. you quit like a bitch and moved the fuck out, so stay the fuck out. i don’t give a fuck if you served. piss off.

    Jasta

    In any normal, sane country both weapons would be banned.

    You don’t need a semi-automatic rifle for hunting purposes unless you’re shit.

    Smellthatshit

    Well,it certainly makes the follow on shot easier.Wing a boar and you`ll need that shot.Or a burglar for that matter.

    Lou R

    Hogs are a good example, but frankly any dangerous game. I don’t hunt myself but when facing an animal that can seriously hurt you in short order the ability to shoot again if you miss is a life or death safety consideration.

    EuroUSA

    Where do you live? Uganda? The Congo?

    … or are you going around shooting pit-bulls on 18th street?

    JediaKyrol

    There are wild hogs in the USA…they’re actually a problem in some states and hunters are paid to thin out their numbers. Also pumas are still all over the western states, and even rarely show up on the East coast. Oh yeah…and

    JediaKyrol
    Lou R

    Yup. Hogs are a serious menace. They destroy huge amounts of crops and can kill or seriously maim people and dogs. They are smart, surprisingly stealthy and quite often shots are taken at them at very close range and suddenly. Moose are quite capable of turning on you too, poor eyesight notwithstanding. Also Javalina, which most people wrongly think are hogs but aren’t can be aggressive. But within the US, hogs are the most serious type of dangerous game.

    WistfulD

    First of all, free or easy mental health care will have a much better effect on preventing mass killings. Second, this is a straw man argument. The fact that previous laws couldn’t distinguish two weapons of effectively the same lethality has no relevance on whether firearm restrictions could or do prevent criminal deaths. That just means that the law was poorly written. We need to decide (hopefully with research and data) whether restricting firearm lethality will have a positive effect, decide whether it’s worth the consequences, and THEN craft very finely tuned laws that actually do so. The ineffectiveness of… Read more »

    Lou R

    Well, the previous law is relevant in that one of the main discussions in the US about firearms laws is the push to reenact that same law. The posted image is a criticism specifically of such a law and does not address the effectiveness of firearm laws or restrictions in general.

    Robert Spam

    Why does the military use one of these but not the other (or do they?)?

    The problem is that fast-reload magazine & the fact more than 200 million firearms are in the hands of civilians.

    Lou R

    Actually they use neither of them. Indeed, they don’t use “assault weapons” at all for the most part. The only thing that makes an assault rifle useful in a military context is that it can fire full auto (or in the case of some American assault rifles in 3 shot bursts). Make the rifle semi-auto only and it is obsolete and more or less unsuitable as a soldiers primary weapon for any battlefield since the late 19th century.

    Aquaman43

    theres bullshit and theres BULLSHIT. this post is from a small penised spoiled republican bible (guns are god given dont ya know) carrying bill of right thumping crybaby. bored? read a GODDAM BOOK.

    Lou R

    Maybe so, but the commentary in it is still accurate. The “Assault Weapons” ban prohibited weapons based on them having a combination of a certain list of features. Most of these features are ones that are more or less irrelevant to the general hazard the rifle poses to the public in general.

    bobo

    what a rational argument you have provided here. read a book. ok. go fuck yourself, faggot.

    pukeonyou

    This M[c]S is so full of leftist nausa inducing shit! I keep coming only for the (scarce) naked girls. The rest is plain shit, nerdy videogame stuff, liberal and socialist bullshit, internet militant atheism, obamalovers, gun control stupidities..
    Fuck, You guys should shut the fuck up and post more girls, so I could hate this place a little less..

    EuroUSA

    We’ll see if we can dig up a naked picture of Laura Bush or Ann Coulter with an assault weapon for you.

    There are plenty of other websites out there with naked women… are you sure you want to be here?

    jeffapotimus

    I’ve been here from the beginning and I get just as frustrated with the lib(ertarian)tards and fucking right-wing sociopaths. Witness all the goddamn gun jargon in this thread alone. You idiots take way too much pride in your gun knowledge.

    Hate all you want, I hope you delete the bookmark.

    You will not be missed.

    Wetwrks

    Plain and simple…the police feel they need items like this to handle criminals. Go ahead and tell me that the criminals breaking into my home arn’t the same criminals that the police face. As the police need these to fight those criminals…I too need these kinds of weapons to fight off these kinds of criminals. As for high capacity mags…I have read where 3 officers fired more than 100 rounds at a criminal and no one was hit. If highly trained officers can fire more than 100 rounds and not hit anything then I (as an untrained individual) need access… Read more »

    OntologicalShock

    Doesn’t work like that, shitbrick. When you’ve got the training of a cop or soldier and maintain that training, then you will be qualified to carry a deadly weapon. Until then, you’re just a huge danger to yourself and others with an over-inflated sense of your own badass warrior skills.

    Lou R

    It is still a reasonable point. Assuming that self-defense is a legitimate purpose for a firearm, is it so unreasonable to have a weapon that is designed for that purpose? I personally don’t find the need to arm myself to protect myself from the boogeyman but I’m not about to say that other people should not be allowed to.

    jeffapotimus

    The problem is not the assumption that self-defense is a legitimate purpose, of course it is. Just like a legitimate purpose for nuclear weapons is to win a war. That doesn’t mean it’s not also a horrible idea. The fact is, in my life I’ve known 3 people who have been shot. None by a burglar, none by an illegal firearm. Two of them died. One by his own hand, one playing soldier in his friends yard at the age of 12. I would not scrap the second amendment. I also wouldn’t make high fructose corn syrup illegal. That doesn’t… Read more »

    EuroUSA

    Oh shit, you’re just another fucking tragedy waiting to happen.

    (What state/area do you live in? …and most importantly: are you keeping up with your meds?)

    WOOPIE GOLDBURGH

    IM A THUG IM WOOPIE GOLDBURGH THE KING AND IM BACK, YOU WILL ALL BOT TO ME, I RUN THIS SITE, YOU WILL ALL SUFFER AND FEAR ME THE KING. AND YOU WILL SCOOT YOUR ASS ACROSS THE FLOOR AND THEN LICK UP THE SKID MARKS THAT YOU HAVE LEFT BEHIND AS I LAUGH AT YOU FOR ENTERTAINMENT. I AM THE KING SHUT UP AND BOW TO ME. IM FAMOUS IM WOOPIE GOLDBURGH IM A THUG, IM A NINJA IM A HORNY NINJA. I WILL DESTROY YOU AND YOUR BUTTHOLES. POOP IS ALL YOU WILL EAT YUM YUM THIS MAKES… Read more »

    Korinthian

    Ban all guns, make it mandatory to carry bows and crossbows. How else are you going to defend yourself against crazy people and your government?

    Bonus: they’re hard to conceal.

    faithless

    Well, the answer is to ban them both, if the differences are not important. Or, keep things the way they are and practice looking sympathetic for the next time someone with weapons he couldn’t get in other democracies walks into a school and starts killing toddlers.

    Lou R

    And that is at least consistent. Proposing a ban on semiautomatic rifles in general however is not what is being proposed by the Dem’s. Presumably the Dem’s understand that semiautomatic hunting rifles are quite common and are explicitly suitable for hunting and pest control purposes. The actual proposal is to reenact the previous ban that would ban one but not the other, which makes no sense.

    Sarah

    Hello, Canada here. I never understood the insane theory that without guns, you can’t defend yourself, and that even without guns there would be just as many homicides. Or, if you take guns from people, they can’t defend themselves from the masses of criminals that will suddenly have an illegal arsenal. And that all this will undoubtedly happen if you take away the guns. We have gun control. You’ll notice we generally have just over 200 deaths attributed to guns each year, versus the 14-16,000 in the states. What people don’t generally consider is that a gun is much easier… Read more »

    Korinthian

    Well said.

    Lou R

    I’m not really refuting your comment but the basic comment that the image is making applies to Canada as well. The frustration that a lot of gun-folk have about “Assault Weapon Bans” is how arbitrary such bans are. To use Canadian gun law as the example, consider 3 rifles. The Ruger Ranch Rifle, as depicted here, is an unrestricted long gun in Canada. This means it is available at any sporting goods store that decides to carry it and its use is no more restricted than is any other rifle in Canada. As made available to the public the Ruger… Read more »