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

[abaddon]

Some thoughts as a disinterested observer.

I can't get my head around these distinctions of the likes of a "pistol grip" being a defining factor. After all, LHO loosed 3 bullets in eight seconds at a range of ca. 90m. A Gewehr 43 with a ten round box could easily kill/maim/injure 10 victims in ca. 30 seconds. And more with a reload or two. No pistol grip, fast reloads. What's all this pistol grip malarkey? How will the banning of pistol grips in any way reduce the occurrence of spree killings? Surely that is just tinkering with the edges of the law to placate the vociferous, no?

And in any event, there are so many guns in circulation, that surely, it must be a futile effort to police them all up?

 

[Mike!]

In the end it's going to turn out to be, any Weapon you can Assault someone with.

Here's a couple clubs, projectiles and a leather gauntlet. So dangerous there's protective headgear included.

How long before only professionals are allowed to use them?

Know who uses a bag of horror like this?

 

[Kestrel]

I can't get my head around these distinctions of the likes of a "pistol grip" being a defining factor. After all, LHO loosed 3 bullets in eight seconds at a range of ca. 90m. A Gewehr 43 with a ten round box could easily kill/maim/injure 10 victims in ca. 30 seconds. And more with a reload or two. No pistol grip, fast reloads. What's all this pistol grip malarkey? How will the banning of pistol grips in any way reduce the occurrence of spree killings? Surely that is just tinkering with the edges of the law to placate the vociferous, no?

Early attempts to ban some of these weapons simply listed them by model number. The manufactures got around this by making minor changes and release a "new" model. For example, the TEC-9^WP was banned in California. The rings that hold the sling were moved and this almost identical weapon was released as the TEC-DC9. Thus the attempt to describe weapons by a list of features instead of just model numbers.

 

[BStrong]

Agreed.

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.

Generally magazines are the weak point of every design, even the best efforts of Browning, Kalashnikov and Stoner (especially Stoner) Magazine induced feeding failure is so common that the first action we train officers and troops to take in the event of the piece failing to fire is the "Tap, Rack, Bang" drill - tap the mag to make sure it's fully seated, rack the action to clear it, and squeeze (Bang!)

Every effort to make the M16 platform better and hold more rounds than the original 20 round mag the rifle was designed around has met with a certain amount of failure, until modern plastic chemistry got into the act.

Using aluminum mag bodies with various geometery changes got the USgov into the 30 round magazine business for GI use, and believe me, those mags were more of a headache than a working tool - lots of bolt over base failures to feed, mag bodies warping when loaded that prevented inserting the mag into the mag well, etc, etc.

We used to load 28 rounds instead of 30, strip the mags down daily and clean the insides, etc, etc - nothing gave consistent 100% feeding and function.

Going to the later plastic follower (non-tilt) helped a bunch, and still didn;t get to consistent 100% reliability.

HK & FN both made runs of steel bodied 30 rounders, great idea, but steel mags in aluminum mag wells in dusty environments equal pieces with too much play in the mag when it's inserted, which leads to failures to feed.

Canada came up with their own solution, the plastic Thermold 30 rounder, tested 'em some worked, some didn't, samey same.

Today, the Magpul company came out with their new plastic mag, the Pmag, and so far those have proven to be the real deal, to the point that before they were assigned a NSN #, troops were buying them with their own funds - no **** - and I've now used them in a few different environments with the best consistent reliability so far, but even they aren't 100%

Fast forward, there are bunches of different 100 round drum mags for the 16 platform - and not a one of them will run 100% with any type of consistency - the Aurora shooter used one of the most popular (Beta C mag) and the failure of that unit was a predicable as the sunset - I would never recommend the use of one of those mags for anything more than range day funtime.

There are good feeding standard capacity mags out there for other designs - AK 30 and 40 rounders manufactured in the former soviet are good stuff. Galil 35 round steel mags, likewise - M14, G3 and FAL 20 round mags are all great, but their 30 round cousins (especially for the 14) not so much.

Pistol mags? whole other story. All standard capacity 12, 13, 15 & 17 round magazines in 9mm for all the different manufacturers are all based on the original Browning P35 12 round 9 MM mag.

The design is great. Who made what when is the wild card, but if one sticks to Browning, Beretta, Glock, HK and SIG factory made magazines you're GTG.

Simlar pistols in .40 and .45, same as above.

Where this particular discussion (magazine capacity restrictions) goes off the rails is the premise that either limiting magazine capacity offers an opportunity for a bystander to intervene, or in limiting mag capacity you limit casualties - I'm not convinced of either premise, and even discounting the possibility that a cluster shooter is a trained end user (I can change rifle mags on the run w/o looking, on rifles I'm trained on) magazine changes are not a difficut skill to acquire w/o formal instruction. I have no problem imagining some nutjob sitting in a dingy apartment dryfiring and practicing magazine changes.

IMO, mag capacity restrictions are a waste of time.

 

[WildCat]

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

This is classic coming from someone who wants to ban so-called "assault rifles" that are almost never used in crimes.

Yes, someone is exaggerating crime and it's not the pro-gun side.

Still waiting for that compelling reason, got one besides scary looking guns make you wet your pants and you don't like gun owners?

 

[BStrong]

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

Hand in hand with the exaggeration of risk to sell restricing civil rights.

 

[abaddon]

This is classic coming from someone who wants to ban so-called "assault rifles" that are almost never used in crimes.

Yes, someone is exaggerating crime and it's not the pro-gun side.

Still waiting for that compelling reason, got one besides scary looking guns make you wet your pants and you don't like gun owners?

I'm in Ireland. Anyone who pays attention, has a more than passing familiarity with assault weapons.

 

[TJM]

Some thoughts as a disinterested observer.

I can't get my head around these distinctions of the likes of a "pistol grip" being a defining factor. After all, LHO loosed 3 bullets in eight seconds at a range of ca. 90m. A Gewehr 43 with a ten round box could easily kill/maim/injure 10 victims in ca. 30 seconds. And more with a reload or two. No pistol grip, fast reloads. What's all this pistol grip malarkey? How will the banning of pistol grips in any way reduce the occurrence of spree killings? Surely that is just tinkering with the edges of the law to placate the vociferous, no?

Because in Feinstein land, any feature found on a scary looking black rifle has the capability of turning it into a fully automatic-bullet spraying-death machine. Those of us with more than a passing interest in firearms knows this is utter bull ****, but she doesn't have to play us. She knows what side her bread is buttered on.

 

[BStrong]

Because in Feinstein land, any feature found on a scary looking black rifle has the capability of turning it into a fully automatic-bullet spraying-death machine. Those of us with more than a passing interest in firearms knows this is utter bull ****, but she doesn't have to play us. She knows what side her bread is buttered on.

That determining factor that really disturbes DiFi and certain others is the fact that people of lesser income/socioeconomic status can afford to possess firearms in general and AW's in particular.

If the buy-in point for the cheapest AW was 10K, and top tackle like a SIG AMT or G series FAL was 25K $ we wouldn't be having this discussion, school shootings or not.

 

[triforcharity]

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?

I'd agree with that conclusion. Other may not, but I do.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

In at least two instances spree killers were stopped by others while they were reloading. Colin Ferguson and Kipland Kinkel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kip_Kinkel

James Holmes (Aurora CO) reportedly had trouble with his 100 round magazine, causing him to stop. Had he been using ordinary magazines his body count might have been higher.

 

[Kestrel]

This is classic coming from someone who wants to ban so-called "assault rifles" that are almost never used in crimes.

Yes, someone is exaggerating crime and it's not the pro-gun side.

Still waiting for that compelling reason, got one besides scary looking guns make you wet your pants and you don't like gun owners?

Gee, you are into personal insults tonight. May I suggest taking a chill pill and reading your membership agreement?

As for your question, it's a matter of feeling in control.

I doubt many of us posting here on JREF feel threatened by the more common reasons for homicide. We don't belong to a drug gang that is in a turf war with another drug gang, or live in neighborhood where that is going on. We don't work the night shift as a liquor store clerk. We don't hang out with people that pull out handguns to settle arguments. Nor are we in intimate relationships with that sort of person. We trust our family members or at least try to avoid those we don't trust.

But nothing we do really helps when it comes to avoiding spree killers. Our loved ones can become victims just by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. And when we look back at these incidents, we find a gun subculture in this country has made it easy for these nut cases to acquire weapons optimized for homicide rather than sport. Nobody raised an eyebrow when James Holmes bought a 100 round magazine. Or when the Tucson shooter acquired a Glock and several 30 round magazines. Or when the Columbine shooters were buying their weapons. Nor did anyone in that culture advise Adam Lanza's mother that Bushmasters don't belong in the same house as a mentally disturbed person.

So how about reverting to a rational gun culture centered on sport?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

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

I won't speak for others, but in my view limiting magazine size is like preventing drunk driving by limiting the number of cupholders in cars. The problem I have with the proposed regulations is that it's low-hanging fruit and largly irrelevant to solving actual problems.

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

We often deride vaxers, creationists and truthers for using squishy terms with no quantifiable meaning in arguments that lack any verifiable or falsifiable concepts. Your use of the term "efficient" falls into that category.

An efficient firearm ammunition delivery system would provide a large amount of useful time putting rounds downrange with a minimum time fussing with the equipment. Larger capacity magazines have greater internal friction and progressively more spring tension as the capacity is reached. It is very common for military shooters of M16 and M4 rifles to underload 30round magazines by a couple of rounds to minimize risk of failure-to-feed jams, and 100 round mags are notorious for feed failure in every caliber for which they've been made which is why they are not issued.

The problem with magazine limit legislation is not that it prevents consumers from getting the best nor most effiecient mags available (although I wish the RamLine 15 round mag for my Ruger MkII had survived the previous ban); the problem is that it's a stupid and unenforceable law that does NOT address the underlying issue of gun violence.

 

[WildCat]

Gee, you are into personal insults tonight. May I suggest taking a chill pill and reading your membership agreement?

As for your question, it's a matter of feeling in control.

I doubt many of us posting here on JREF feel threatened by the more common reasons for homicide. We don't belong to a drug gang that is in a turf war with another drug gang, or live in neighborhood where that is going on. We don't work the night shift as a liquor store clerk. We don't hang out with people that pull out handguns to settle arguments. Nor are we in intimate relationships with that sort of person. We trust our family members or at least try to avoid those we don't trust.

But nothing we do really helps when it comes to avoiding spree killers. Our loved ones can become victims just by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. And when we look back at these incidents, we find a gun subculture in this country has made it easy for these nut cases to acquire weapons optimized for homicide rather than sport. Nobody raised an eyebrow when James Holmes bought a 100 round magazine. Or when the Tucson shooter acquired a Glock and several 30 round magazines. Or when the Columbine shooters were buying their weapons. Nor did anyone in that culture advise Adam Lanza's mother that Bushmasters don't belong in the same house as a mentally disturbed person.

So how about reverting to a rational gun culture centered on sport?

What exactly do you think your odds are of getting killed by a spree killer?

Just a few posts ago you were ridiculing gun owners over crime figures, when odds are a gun owner is far (hundreds of times actually) more likely to use his gun to protect their person or property than you are of getting shot by a spree killer.

And it gets even more ridiculous when you assume that limiting magazine sizes significantly reduces those odds.

Got stats Kestrel? Or is it still just special pleading and appeals to emotion?

 

[GeeMack]

What exactly do you think your odds are of getting killed by a spree killer?

Across the general population, a bit less likely than dying from getting hit by lightning on the golf course.

 

[WildCat]

Across the general population, a bit less likely than dying from getting hit by lightning on the golf course.

And about the same as getting killed by your neighbor's dog. Clearly, we need to ban dogs.

 

[Mike!]

And about the same as getting killed by your neighbor's dog. Clearly, we need to ban dogs.

Just large capacity dogs.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

And about the same as getting killed by your neighbor's dog. Clearly, we need to ban dogs.

No, just the scary black dogs. For other dogs we need to impose limits on the number of teeth they're allowed.

 

[RandFan]

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.

You have me confused with someone else.

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.

I'm talking tactics. These are dumb tactics.

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.

Not sure how that changes anything.

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).

Not my claim but not then I'm not impressed with the appeal to intuition either.

I'd bet they are involved in far fewer than 1% of all shootings.

This has already been coneded to at length. I was talking tactics and the things gun proponents do that is really stupid from a PR point of view. This being at the top. You are defending a piece of hardware you think is inefficient. Yeah, I think that's pretty dumb.

 

[Polaris]

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

There is a statistically insignificant risk to society caused by "assault weapons". They are only a risk when whores in Congress want to pretend to give a **** about crime.

Gee, you are into personal insults tonight.

Glass houses....