What exactly makes an Assault Weapon an Assault Weapon in the first place?

[WildCat]

It seems to me that the basic idea behind all this is a reasonable one. Assault rifles were banned, but gun manufacturers figured out that there was a huge market for assault rifles that had been modified to remove the selective fire capability.

IOW, they just look like assault rifles.

The term "assault weapon" was even coined originally as a marketing term, making it clear to the buyer that this was not a simple hunting rifle, but instead a military combat weapon. That was the whole selling point.

It was actually a term coined in Nazi Germany to describe the StG-44, the first modern assault rifle.

 

[fuelair]

As usual it comes down to a bunch of old white people wanting more control over black stocks . . .

I am technically an old white people. I am fine with guns - but you do have part of the demographic!!!

 

[Rashmi]

DNRTT; however, it usually has to do with the penis.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Sounds to me that "assault weapon" is like "pit bull" -- 9/10 people who use the term would be unable to distinguish between the objects they think it describes and the objects it doesn't. Which doesn't stop them from feeling very strongly about the issue, of course.

 

[Noztradamus]

What, exactly, is an Assault Weapon?

A compact "bullet hose" rifle capable of "spray-firing from the hip, a widely recognized technique for the use of assault weapons" (as defined by the folks at VPC)

 

[fuelair]

IOW, they just look like assault rifles.


It was actually a term coined in Nazi Germany to describe the StG-44, the first modern assault rifle.

And, no the picture is not wrong boys and girls - the AK-47 was ripped off from this - though improved a bit!!

 

[Ranb]

Why must it be only guns? Is it only certain calibre of guns, using certain magazines and munitions? Is it only semi-automatic and/or fully automatic that get considered? Scoped? What, exactly, is an Assault Weapon?

Legally it will mean anything that the law says it should. Remember some people who wanted to define some guns as weapons of mass destruction?

Personally I think any weapon designed and intended to assault a human can be considered an assault weapon.

Ranb

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

It seems to me that the basic idea behind all this is a reasonable one. Assault rifles were banned, but gun manufacturers figured out that there was a huge market for assault rifles that had been modified to remove the selective fire capability. The term "assault weapon" was even coined originally as a marketing term, making it clear to the buyer that this was not a simple hunting rifle, but instead a military combat weapon. That was the whole selling point.

Naturally some people don't like this arrangement. Removing the burst fire and full autofire capability of an assault rifle certainly reduces its destructive capabilities, but not a whole lot. It's still a weapon that is designed for killing a lot of people very quickly, and which is very good at doing what it was designed for.

Now as for me, I would say just outlaw large magazines and firearms that can be converted for full autofire.

Not so reasonable when you understand that assault rifles were banned in the US before they were ever invented. In order to be classified as an assault rifle, a firearm must utilize an intermediate battle cartridge, have a rapid detachable magazine and the capability for fully automatic (later incorporating burst) fire.
Rifles that do not possess all three features are not assault rifles.
Just FYI, lacking the fully automatic capability does significantly reduce its destructive capability. Ask anyone who has ever served time in a combat unit.
The whole purpose of designing an assault rifle centered around the increased destructive capabilities of fully automatic fire in the hands of the rifleman.

 

[Ranb]

I remember some NRA guy talking about how stupid it was that a "pistol grip" was one characteristic of an assault weapon. I don't know much about guns, but it appear obvious to me that having a pistol grip, like the weapons on the right in the post #9 would certainly make it easier to quickly target a bunch of kids in a classroom, when compared to the hunting rifles on the left...

It isn't obvious to me. I can shoot any of the rifles in that photo equally well (or poorly) from the shoulder or the hip. The presence or absence of a pistol grip matters far less than caliber, sights and shooter proficiency. While pistol grip rifles are much more common than non-pistol grip rifles at shooting competitions these days, it has more to do with the popularity of the AR-15 (223 caliber) over the M-1A (30 caliber) and Mini-14 (223).

What experience do you have that says it is easier to target a bunch of kids in a classroom with a pistol grip rifle than with what you call a hunting rifle?

Ranb

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Here's how it was defined in the 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban" (actually a section of the "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994"):

(b) DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means--
`(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as--
`(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
`(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
`(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
`(iv) Colt AR-15;
`(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
`(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
`(vii) Steyr AUG;
`(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
`(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;
`(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
`(iii) a bayonet mount;
`(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
`(v) a grenade launcher;
`(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
`(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
`(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
`(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
`(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
`(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and
`(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
`(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
`(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.'.

I didn't reproduce the indents that make it a lot easier to read. Here's a more readable text: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c103:7:./temp/~c103cFpUPZ:e643945:

ETA: Reasonable minds can disagree whether or not this law was good public policy, but the fact that there is no industry standard definition for the term "semiautomatic assault weapon" is irrelevant to the whether or not we know what we're talking about. The legislature provided a detailed enough definition that no court would have much trouble determining whether a given weapon counted as a "semiautomatic assault weapon" for purposes of this law.

Similarly, the term "accommodation" has no specific meaning outside of the ADA, but for purposes of enforcing the law, the term was defined in the various sections of the legislation. Where it's vague or ambiguous, courts have to try to figure out what was meant. But I don't see any such problem with the definition of "semiautomatic assault weapons" for purposes of the 1994 ban. Again, reasonable minds can disagree over whether the definition results in good policy, but there really isn't an ambiguity or vagueness problem.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The presence or absence of a pistol grip matters far less than caliber, sights and shooter proficiency.

Your point--at least put simply that a pistol grip itself ought not make or break the determination as to whether or not the thing should be included in a ban-- seems to have been taken into account by the definition I just cited.

In section B, you could have a semiautomatic rifle that tacks a detachable clip with a pistol grip, and it still might not count as an "assault weapon" (because it lacks all the other characteristics listed under B except the pistol grip). You could also have one that lacks a pistol grip and still qualifies because it has 2 of the other characteristics listed.

 

[triforcharity]

Too bad the law can't just be that picture, plus a caption that read "the guns on the left are allowed, the guns on the right are prohibited".

ETA: The joke is that they're all the same gun, right?

Pretty much. They all shoot the same cartridge and fire exactly the same

 

[BStrong]

A compact "bullet hose" rifle capable of "spray-firing from the hip, a widely recognized technique for the use of assault weapons" (as defined by the folks at VPC)

Josh Sugarman, the head honcho at VPC, put it thusly:

"Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."

-Josh Sugarmann, Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, 1988[9][10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Sugarmann

Gotta love somebody exploiting ignorance to achieve their goals.

 

[Mudcat]

"An assault rifle is a selective fire (selective between automatic, semi-automatic, and burst fire) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.[1]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

I'm sorry I doubted you. My objection was based on the fact that I assumed selective fire alone wouldn't be enough to call a gun an Assault Weapon.

Is there a reason why civilians would need selective fire though?

 

[WildCat]

I'm sorry I doubted you. My objection was based on the fact that I assumed selective fire alone wouldn't be enough to call a gun an Assault Weapon.

Is there a reason why civilians would need selective fire though?

What guns sold to the public today do you think have selective fire?

They've been banned since 1986, and if you want one of those older ones you have a whole lot of restrictions to abide by, including permisson from your local chief law enforcement officer and allowing the feds to inspect it at any time they choose. The gun itself will cost you upwards of $10,000.

 

[Mudcat]

What guns sold to the public today do you think have selective fire?

They've been banned since 1986, and if you want one of those older ones you have a whole lot of restrictions to abide by, including permisson from your local chief law enforcement officer and allowing the feds to inspect it at any time they choose. The gun itself will cost you upwards of $10,000.

Point out where I claimed that any are available to civilians now, please.

I was asking if there would be any practicality to having selective fire on civilian owned weapons.

 

[BStrong]

What guns sold to the public today do you think have selective fire?

They've been banned since 1986, and if you want one of those older ones you have a whole lot of restrictions to abide by, including permisson from your local chief law enforcement officer and allowing the feds to inspect it at any time they choose. The gun itself will cost you upwards of $10,000.

Urban legend.

Other than the buy-in prices, the 5-19-86 cut-off date on new manufacturing of transferables didn't change any of the critera for purchase of N.F.A. weapons or devices - I don't know where the rumour started about LE inspections, but it wasn't true before the F.O.P.A. and it isn't true now.

Qualified individuals that live in N.F.A. friendly states and localities can purchase whatever their budget will allow - and there are still a bunch of transferable firearms for sale.

 

[BStrong]

I'm sorry I doubted you. My objection was based on the fact that I assumed selective fire alone wouldn't be enough to call a gun an Assault Weapon.

Is there a reason why civilians would need selective fire though?

The selector isn't called "the fun switch" for nothing.

Seriously, for the most part, N.F.A. weapons and devices are owned for reasons other than the practcal, just like 100K $ wristwatches and motorcycles that can exceed 200 MPH.

 

[fuelair]

Not so reasonable when you understand that assault rifles were banned in the US before they were ever invented. In order to be classified as an assault rifle, a firearm must utilize an intermediate battle cartridge, have a rapid detachable magazine and the capability for fully automatic (later incorporating burst) fire.
Rifles that do not possess all three features are not assault rifles.
Just FYI, lacking the fully automatic capability does significantly reduce its destructive capability. Ask anyone who has ever served time in a combat unit.
The whole purpose of designing an assault rifle centered around the increased destructive capabilities of fully automatic fire in the hands of the rifleman.

Except, as I recall, it was the not particularly effective method of praying and spraying that make selective fire with a 3 shot burst need to be added. Worried troops tended to expend much ammo to not much effect doing the full auto thing IIRC.

 

[BStrong]

Except, as I recall, it was the not particularly effective method of prying and spraying that make selective fire with a 3 shot burst need to be added. Worried troops tended to expend much ammo to not much effect doing the full auto thing IIRC.

The 3 shot burst is a great idea in theory, and a pure pita in practice.

Cuts training time (true), conserves ammo, (allegedly...) increases effectiveness (false)

Go fast units in the military and LE go without the extra complexity in the lower, and use the original safe-semi-auto selector configuration.

My primary bitch is that if the user gets out of the trigger before the 3 rounds cycle, the user is left w/ one or two rounds, and then needs to release the trigger and squeeze all over again - that and the extra parts in the lower are just more parts to fail.