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

[TJM]

Very good reasons to limit magazine sizes. If the pro gun side can dispute this with reasonable arguments then maybe they might have something, but this is beyond the scope of this thread so that's neither nor there.

To educate the ignorant:

Forward to around the 4 minute mark.

 

[WildCat]

Very good reasons to limit magazine sizes.

Hardly, that's 2 incidents in 30 years.

And in one of them the killer actually had more loaded guns on him, he was surprised by a wounded person.

And in the Colorado theater shooting it ended when the high-capacity magazine, as they often do, jammed. Had he had several lower-capacity magazines it could have gone on longer.

 

[RandFan]

Hardly, that's 2 incidents in 30 years.

Agreed.

And in one of them the killer actually had more loaded guns on him, he was surprised by a wounded person.

And in the Colorado theater shooting it ended when the high-capacity magazine, as they often do, jammed. Had he had several lower-capacity magazines it could have gone on longer.

This is where I think some people shake there heads at gun advocates. Every anecdote is fought over no matter how absurd.

Could you provide your citations? And so what if someone was surprised by a wounded person? The guy was reloading which gave others a chance to stop him. Also, if high capacity magazines are so inefficient and far more subject to failure that doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement for them. But I will wait for your source to comment further.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Spree killers are highly trained and never fumble the magazine while reloading.

 

[WildCat]

Agreed.

This is where I think some people shake there heads at gun advocates. Every anecdote is fought over no matter how absurd.

What's absurd about it? If you're going to advocate abridging a Constitutional right you should have a damned good reason, not just emotional pleading.

Could you provide your citations? And so what if someone was surprised by a wounded person? The guy was reloading which gave others a chance to stop him. Also, if high capacity magazines are so inefficient and far more subject to failure that doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement for them. But I will wait for your source to comment further.

The citation was in the Kip Kinkel link you supplied. He didn't have to relaod then, he just thought it was a convenient time. He had several other loaded guns on him, and in fact was able to pull one out (a Glock) and fire it when he was tackled.

And here's the cite for the magazine jamming during the Colorado theater shooting, first sentence of the story: http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/22/us/colorado-shooting-investigation

There's a reason the military doesn't use such magazines, they're notorious for causing jams. You always see the gangsters in the movies using the Tommy guns with the round high-capacity magazines, but you never see pics of US soldiers with anything but the 20 round stick magazines in their Thompsons.

 

[GeeMack]

This is where I think some people shake there heads at gun advocates. Every anecdote is fought over no matter how absurd.

Perhaps more interesting is that absurd anecdotes are used as arguments opposing gun ownership and/or increasing restrictions. It should be fairly obvious that if absurd anecdotes weren't offered, there would be no need to point out that they are indeed absurd.

 

[RandFan]

What's absurd about it?

It's an argument where both high capacity and low capacity are superior.

If you're going to advocate abridging a Constitutional right you should have a damned good reason, not just emotional pleading.

This doesn't follow from what I said. It's entirely irrelevant. I don't disagree with you. I question the idea of fighting tooth and nail every battle even those that are PR disasters and simply make you look like you are closed to any and every attempt to save lives regardless. The Constitution doesn't guarantee you the right to a bazooka or flame thrower. High capacity magazines are not necessary for you to enjoy your 2nd amendment rights. And, by your testimony they are bad for the person using them.

The citation was in the Kip Kinkel link you supplied. He didn't have to relaod then, he just thought it was a convenient time. He had several other loaded guns on him, and in fact was able to pull one out (a Glock) and fire it when he was tackled.

And? The reloading was the reason he was tackled.

And here's the cite for the magazine jamming during the Colorado theater shooting, first sentence of the story: http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/22/us/colorado-shooting-investigation

So, reloading, regardless of reason, can be an opportunity to disarm someone.

There's a reason the military doesn't use such magazines, they're notorious for causing jams. You always see the gangsters in the movies using the Tommy guns with the round high-capacity magazines, but you never see pics of US soldiers with anything but the 20 round stick magazines in their Thompsons.

Then perhpas people shouldn't get so upset with limiting magazine size. By your argument it's in their best interest.

Still waiting for the citation that demonstrates that high capacity magazines are less efficient than low capacity magazines.

 

[Kestrel]

Spree killers are highly trained and never fumble the magazine while reloading.

In Hollywood B moves and comic books, criminals often have ninja level skills. We are asked to believe that because some expert can swap magazines with amazing speed on a youtube video, the next spree killer will also have those skills.

In the real world, we seldom see such competence. The Columbine killers didn't know how to properly clear their Tec 9 when it jammed. Most of their bombs also failed to work. The Tucson shooter fumbled when reloading and was stopped by his victims. Some of Adam Lanza's victims managed to run away while he was swapping magazines.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

This doesn't follow from what I said. It's entirely irrelevant. I don't disagree with you. I question the idea of fighting tooth and nail every battle even those that are PR disasters and simply make you look like you are closed to any and every attempt to save lives regardless. The Constitution doesn't guarantee you the right to a bazooka or flame thrower. High capacity magazines are not necessary for you to enjoy your 2nd amendment rights. And, by your testimony they are bad for the person using them.

And? The reloading was the reason he was tackled.

So, reloading, regardless of reason, can be an opportunity to disarm someone.

Then perhpas people shouldn't get so upset with limiting magazine size. By your argument it's in their best interest.

I don't really care about hi-cap magazines. I never carried them because they are prone to jamming, so if the anti-gun crowd wants to get a warm fuzzy by banning them, it's no real loss.
But claiming that forcing the assailant to change magazines will somehow reduce the amount of carnage in an assault like the ones described is just silly. You might have an opportunity to disarm someone while they're reloading, but the odds are about as good as disarming him by throwing a flower vase or some other object at his head while he's still firing.
Look at the examples that seem to be the subject of this brouhaha:

Columbine- Assailant had no problem reloading with standard magazines multiple times (did have his hi-cap mag jamb).
Aurora- Apparently managed to reload at least 3 times (did have hi-cap magazine jamb).
Va Tech- No problem reloading multiple times.
Sandy Hook- It wouldn't have mattered if he had just brought along standard magazines, or even 5 round sporters; he had a captive audience with no ability to resist.

There is only one way to stop an assailant under such circumstances, and that is with an immediate, violent, and overwhelming counter-response. That is what the Army teaches its combat soldiers.

Still waiting for the citation that demonstrates that high capacity magazines are less efficient than low capacity magazines.

And the Army doesn't use extended magazines, because they tend to malfunction.They teach tactical reloading instead.

 

[RandFan]

I don't really care about hi-cap magazines. I never carried them because they are prone to jamming, so if the anti-gun crowd wants to get a warm fuzzy by banning them, it's no real loss.
But claiming that forcing the assailant to change magazines will somehow reduce the amount of carnage in an assault like the ones described is just silly.

I have maintained from the start that focusing on these weapons and the high-cap magazines was irrational as they are so rare as to be statistically insignificant. My point was with the "fight every fight" mentality. If you look at the response I gave to WildCat that started our little discussion you will note that I agreed with him on the facts of there being only two incidents in 30 years where magazine capacity was even an issue.

I'm not anti-gun nor am I a huge gun proponent. I see myself as A.) a realist B.) A lover of guns. But I understand the risk of being perceived as a "concern troll". I'm not trying to hand out advice but I think the better arguments are on the rarity of mass killings with high fire rate weapons.

You might have an opportunity to disarm someone while they're reloading, but the odds are about as good as disarming him by throwing a flower vase or some other object at his head while he's still firing.
Look at the examples that seem to be the subject of this brouhaha:

Columbine- Assailant had no problem reloading with standard magazines multiple times (did have his hi-cap mag jamb).
Aurora- Apparently managed to reload at least 3 times (did have hi-cap magazine jamb).
Va Tech- No problem reloading multiple times.
Sandy Hook- It wouldn't have mattered if he had just brought along standard magazines, or even 5 round sporters; he had a captive audience with no ability to resist.

There is only one way to stop an assailant under such circumstances, and that is with an immediate, violent, and overwhelming counter-response. That is what the Army teaches its combat soldiers.

And the Army doesn't use extended magazines, because they tend to malfunction.They teach tactical reloading instead.

Then, IMHO, folks ought to let that one go as far as arguments are concerned. Again, just expressing my opinion.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Very good reasons to limit magazine sizes. If the pro gun side can dispute this with reasonable arguments then maybe they might have something, but this is beyond the scope of this thread so that's neither nor there.

Based upon the information provided by the more gun literate posters here I've come to the conclusion that Assault Weapons do have a proper category beyond 'big, scary looking guns', and those particular weapons are not easy or cheap to get.

Is this an accurate conclusion?

No, it's not an accurate conclusion.
Both examples you gave were stopped when someone finally got up the sack to do the one thing that has the greatest chance of success: an overwhelming, violent, counter attack. In Ferguson's case, he had managed to reload repeatedly and while if the counter attack had been made while he was still engaging targets might have led to one or more of the counter attackers being killed or wounded, waiting until he was reloading caused more deaths, not less.
In the case of Kinkel he still managed to wound one more person, as he carried multiple firearms. Again, had the counter attack been immediate the loss of life reasonable could have been less.
Just what is "a proper category beyond 'big, scary looking guns"? Everything I have seen is so broad it could be interpreted to cover just about any modern firearm.

 

[WildCat]

It's an argument where both high capacity and low capacity are superior.

Just pointing out that there are advantages and disadvantages. And remember, the anti-gun people who are against concealed carry say it's absurd to think, for example, an armed citizen could stop a spree killer but then say unarmed people can disarm the shooter when he's changing magazines.

This doesn't follow from what I said. It's entirely irrelevant. I don't disagree with you. I question the idea of fighting tooth and nail every battle even those that are PR disasters and simply make you look like you are closed to any and every attempt to save lives regardless. The Constitution doesn't guarantee you the right to a bazooka or flame thrower. High capacity magazines are not necessary for you to enjoy your 2nd amendment rights. And, by your testimony they are bad for the person using them.

It's not up to me to show people need high-capacity magazines, it's for those who woulod ban them to show good reason why they should be banned. So far all we've gotten is anecdotes from a subset of rare events (spree killings) and appeals to emotion. And flamethrowers, btw, aren't banned by any law I'm aware of, at least not at the federal level. Yet we don't have a rash of flamethrower murders for some reason. Bazookas aren't commonly carried by a typical infantry soldier, which was the test in Heller. It's a squad-level weapon.

And? The reloading was the reason he was tackled.

Under fa;se pretense as it turned out, because he didn't have to reload at that time. He just thought it was safe to do so.

So, reloading, regardless of reason, can be an opportunity to disarm someone.

If you thionk the second or so it takes to remove a spent magazine and insert a new one provides a good opportunity. There's plenty of other examples of gunmen changing magazines many times without someone having the opportunity to tackle them. Basically the only chance you have at that is if your in very tight crowded quarters, like a train (Colin Ferguson).

Then perhpas people shouldn't get so upset with limiting magazine size. By your argument it's in their best interest.

Still waiting for the citation that demonstrates that high capacity magazines are less efficient than low capacity magazines.

You haven't shown that high-capacity magazines are even an issue. You have nothing but anecdotes and appeals to emotion. Do you have any stats about how big a problem high-capacity magazines actually are? I'd bet they are involved in far fewer than 1% of all shootings. And no doubt the anti-gunners will include suicides in with the stats too, as if you need a high-capacity magazine to shoot yourself.

 

[Kestrel]

Just what is "a proper category beyond 'big, scary looking guns"? Everything I have seen is so broad it could be interpreted to cover just about any modern firearm.

Do you need a Bushmaster with a 30 round magazine for anything outside your fantasy life?

Such weapons are not designed for the needs of sportsmen. You don't need to lay down suppressing fire when hunting deer. It's overkill for small game, varmints and target shooting. It's inappropriate for any rational home defense scenaria this side of fighting off a SWAT team.

The firearms industry wants to sell product. A good hunting rifle or shotgun will normally outlast the hunter who buys it. The same holds for smaller guns used for small game and target shooting. But by playing the fear card, the industry can sell a lot more firearms. A selection of handguns for concealed carry, because the world has become too dangerous to leave home without one. An AR-15 or two at the ready for home defense because the ethic hordes in the ghetto are coming to kill you and rape your women. Before long you have spent about $5,000 on weapons. Buying into the fear without realizing it was just a sales pitch.

 

[WildCat]

Do you need a Bushmaster with a 30 round magazine for anything outside your fantasy life?

Does anyone "need" a Ferrari? A Corvette? A 5,000 ft² house? A swimming pool? 3 dogs? A speedboat? A private airplane?

You don't get to just ban things because you personally don't like them and/or the mere sight of them makes you wet your pants, you have to show a compelling reason.

And so far all we have are anecdotes, ad-homs, and appeals to emotion.

 

[jimbob]

And the fact that there is a significant cost to society in injuries and deaths

 

[theprestige]

Point out where I claimed otherwise, if you would be so kind.

Certainly! My pleasure.

It's implied in your request. You asked for a reason why civilians should have the select fire feature. This implies that it's a privilege that needs a justification for granting, instead of a right that needs a justification for taking away.

If we agree that owning a firearm is a right, then my position is that it's your responsibility to justify restricting that right. If you can't produce such a justification, then the right to bear arms should stand without restriction--and that includes the right to bear arms with selective fire capability.

Really? All you have is reversing the burden of proof?

My position is that if bearing firearms is a right, then it's your burden to prove that restricting or removing firearm features (such as selective fire) is justified.

My position is that by asking for a justification to add firearm features, you are a) implying that firearm ownership is not a right, or b) reversing the burden of proof, which properly rests on you.

Also isn't the reason why they shouldn't have it is because it is illegal to have without a special permit?

That seems like a really weak reason to not have the feature. If the only thing that says not to is a law, and nobody can give a good reason why the law says so, then the right thing to do is repeal the law.

I assume you don't go around justifying all sorts of other unjustified laws by appealing to the law itself. I mean, can you imagine?

"Why shouldn't colored people sit at the front of the bus if they want? Because of the law, that's why."

"Why shouldn't women get an abortion if they want? Because of the law, that's why."

I expect that, however much you may insist upon the rule of law, you are also quite insistent that bad laws should be changed or repealed.

So don't try to hide behind a law you can't even be bothered to justify. You agree that firearms ownership is a right. Do you have a good reason why that right should be restricted by outlawing selective fire? Yes or no?

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Does anyone "need" a Ferrari? A Corvette? A 5,000 ft² house? A swimming pool? 3 dogs? A speedboat? A private airplane?

You don't get to just ban things because you personally don't like them and/or the mere sight of them makes you wet your pants, you have to show a compelling reason.

And so far all we have are anecdotes, ad-homs, and appeals to emotion.

It's interesting to watch them spin, duck, dodge, and weave when asked to provide an answer that the anti-gun crowd allegedly "discovers".
In this case, he claims that there is a "proper" category, but when asked just what that "proper" category is, he falls back on "why do you need it?", ignoring the question that his own statement begged.
I don't expect he'll have a reasonable answer for why someone needs an automobile, a home as opposed to an apartment, or any of the other things people want, but really have no need for, and which by possessing actually do long term harm collectively to society.
Plus, you just asked him the QUESTION THAT SHALL NOT BE ANSWERED, namely, to show a compelling reason.
You're being unfair, WildCat. You're asking an anti-gun proponent to make sense, provide logical evidence and answer a direct question.

 

[Mudcat]

No, it's not an accurate conclusion.

Here is my original conclusion:

Based upon the information provided by the more gun literate posters here I've come to the conclusion that Assault Weapons do have a proper category beyond 'big, scary looking guns', and those particular weapons are not easy or cheap to get.

I fail to see how that conclusion is in any way inaccurate.

Both examples you gave were givenwere stopped when someone finally got up the sack to do the one thing that has the greatest chance of success:

Fixed that for you, I did not provide those two examples.

Just what is "a proper category beyond 'big, scary looking guns"? Everything I have seen is so broad it could be interpreted to cover just about any modern firearm.

Agreed, which is why I started this thread. And so far the results are very positive, there are very reasonable definitions of what qualify as Assault Weapons outside of political rhetoric and fear mongering.

 

[Mudcat]

So don't try to hide behind a law you can't even be bothered to justify. You agree that firearms ownership is a right. Do you have a good reason why that right should be restricted by outlawing selective fire? Yes or no?

Yes I do, as a mater of fact.

First, there appears no practical reason to own a gun with selective fire. When will you ever need it? All the stated practical reasons, which really are largely impractical when you get down to it, don't require anything more than semi-auto and even the 'need' for that is sketchy at best.

Second, there is nothing wrong with requiring further licensing with owning specific item(s) that require greater responsibility which seems to be what the 'bans' are all about, whether the ownership of said item(s) is/are a right or a privilege.

Which is about as far as I'm willing to take the argument, because any further and it becomes a gun debate and I want to avoid that here as much as possible. It's a good thread so far, very informative for a gun illiterate person like me. So let's keep the rhetoric and politics out of it, okay?

 

[Kestrel]

And the fact that there is a significant cost to society in injuries and deaths

Our society is also damaged by the exaggeration of crime risk that is used to sell firearms.