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

[RandFan]

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.

I don't find the metaphor at all helpful. Not sure why you think it apropos but whatever. I don't know to what degree the magazines will do much of anything. I do know how to look as if I don't give a **** about anything but what's important to me. It's called picking your fights.

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.

Hang on, you alledge that using smaller size magazines can result in higher body counts. Now, either you stand by that claim or not. If so then the word you are looking for efficient. If you still want to be difficult over a word then how about more effective or just "better"? I don't get the sudden pedantic argument over what you agree is "better" for killing in a short amount of time.

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.

So what? Seriously so what? Is there a better way of saying to the parents of dead children that you don't care? Here you have a magazine that you say is worse for people who use it but you refuse any and all discussion over limiting that magazine. Politically I don't think that's particularly smart. JMO on the politics of all of this.

 

[RandFan]

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.

At the end of the day the guy had to reload given people and opportunity to tackle him. And if he had a an ordinary magazine his body count might have been lower.

 

[Giz]

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

That's one way of looking at it (the "Citizens should have to justify why they should be allowed to do stuff"))
The other way of looking at it is: Government should have to justify why citizens shouldn't be allowed to do stuff.

So far it appears that, (a) banning high cap mags would have a statistically insignificant effect on the death rate, (b) some people are scared of them. So… do we ban them? Hmmm, land of the free and home of the brave, or land of the "we can probably get by without this" and "maybe I'llI feel a little less irrational fear now"?

 

[Cleon]

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

Just large capacity dogs.

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

I've actually seen a few parallels between the arguments of those who want to ban pit bulls and those who want to ban "assault weapons:"

• The "nobody needs one" argument
• The inability to precisely define/quantify what exactly qualifies as an AW/pitbull
• The fuzzy line between correlation and causation
• False ideas about the capabilities of what they want to ban - with AWs, they think they're fully automatic, with PBTs, they think that pits have super-special locking jaws and super-canine strength.

 

[Kestrel]

At the end of the day the guy had to reload given people and opportunity to tackle him. And if he had a an ordinary magazine his body count might have been lower.

You are confusing the Aurora theater shooter with the Tucson shooter. James Holmes switched to other weapons when his magazine jammed. Then backed out the door when those were empty. The police found him sitting in his car in the back parking lot.

The Tucson shooter was tackled during a magazine change. One of his victims grabbed the new magazine as he was pulling it out, then others piled on top of the shooter.

Isn't it sad that we have enough of these incidents to get the details confused?

 

[GeeMack]

At the end of the day the guy had to reload given people and opportunity to tackle him. And if he had a an ordinary magazine his body count might have been lower.

And it might have been higher. So what? That's the point. When there are calls for limiting the capacity of magazines based on fantasy scenarios and what-if's, those who recognize it as an arbitrary and non-objective argument are going to point out that it is indeed arbitrary.

Larger magazines may offer a chance to shoot more before reloading, and smaller magazines may give bystanders an opportunity to tackle the assailant. Smaller magazines are more reliable and can often be changed faster than recovering from a jam that might occur with a larger magazine, and can therefore give the assailant a chance to shoot more. So at the real end of the day, not the imaginary one posited here...

At the end of the day the guy had to reload given people and opportunity to tackle him. And if he had a an ordinary magazine his body count might have been lower.

... the suggestion to limit magazine capacity is a political feel-good talking point, and not an objectively demonstrable way to reduce gun violence. If it's just about outrage and hand wringing, that's great. But if it's about a realistic approach toward modifying social policy, appealing to fantasy seems like a pretty poor way to go about it.

 

[RandFan]

That's one way of looking at it (the "Citizens should have to justify why they should be allowed to do stuff"))
The other way of looking at it is: Government should have to justify why citizens shouldn't be allowed to do stuff.

So far it appears that, (a) banning high cap mags would have a statistically insignificant effect on the death rate, (b) some people are scared of them. So… do we ban them? Hmmm, land of the free and home of the brave, or land of the "we can probably get by without this" and "maybe I'llI feel a little less irrational fear now"?

I don't know that they are wrong. I know have my opinion. I know that I have carefully considered the arguments and I don't myself see these magazines as a statistical threat. I sure as hell wouldn't pick a fight over it or the background checks.

The 2nd Amendment is not absolute and the people have the right to seek redress and change from their government. Fighting for the right to have a piece of hardware you say is less effective makes for bad politics, IMO.

 

[RandFan]

You are confusing the Aurora theater shooter with the Tucson shooter. James Holmes switched to other weapons when his magazine jammed. Then backed out the door when those were empty. The police found him sitting in his car in the back parking lot.

The Tucson shooter was tackled during a magazine change. One of his victims grabbed the new magazine as he was pulling it out, then others piled on top of the shooter.

Isn't it sad that we have enough of these incidents to get the details confused?

I linked the two I was referring to.

In at least two instances spree killers were stopped by others while they were reloading. Colin Ferguson and Kipland Kinkel.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Nuclear arms haven't been used to kill people in over a generation. We know that they are rarely used to kill people. Why is the government restricting my 2nd amendment right to own one?

 

[Kestrel]

I've actually seen a few parallels between the arguments of those who want to ban pit bulls and those who want to ban "assault weapons:"

• The "nobody needs one" argument
• The inability to precisely define/quantify what exactly qualifies as an AW/pitbull
• The fuzzy line between correlation and causation
• False ideas about the capabilities of what they want to ban - with AWs, they think they're fully automatic, with PBTs, they think that pits have super-special locking jaws and super-canine strength.

Why are you pretending that everyone who wants to restrict Assault Weapons confuses them with full automatic weapons? It's the kind of name calling that allows you to avoid a real discussion.

I made a suggestion earlier that restricting semi automatic firearms and detachable magazines for those firearms that hold more than some defined number of rounds would be much simpler than the other ways of defining "assault weapon".

 

[Cleon]

Why are you pretending that everyone who wants to restrict Assault Weapons confuses them with full automatic weapons?

Did I say "everyone?" I certainly didn't mean "everyone." Only that I've seen the same memes pop up.

 

[Giz]

Fighting for the right to have a piece of hardware you say is less effective makes for bad politics, IMO.

It may well be bad politics in the short term... but allowing freedoms to be abridged that didn't need to be abridged is a bad way for government to be conducted in the short, medium and long term.

Perhaps instead of saying "well, people are scared so even if there's no good data to justify a ban, we should go ahead with fear driven law making", all good skeptics should be asking people to look at the evidence and make decisions using reason rather than emotion.

(I mean, this is the JREF, right?)

 

[Kestrel]

I don't know that they are wrong. I know have my opinion. I know that I have carefully considered the arguments and I don't myself see these magazines as a statistical threat. I sure as hell wouldn't pick a fight over it or the background checks.

The 2nd Amendment is not absolute and the people have the right to seek redress and change from their government. Fighting for the right to have a piece of hardware you say is less effective makes for bad politics, IMO.

The slippery slope fallacy pervades the entire gun rights lobby. If they give an inch on anything, the result will be Hitler.

Even changes that are supported by the vast majority of voters are fought tooth and nail. For example, expanding background checks to cover private sales.

 

[RandFan]

It may well be bad politics in the short term... but allowing freedoms to be abridged that didn't need to be abridged is a bad way for government to be conducted in the short, medium and long term.

Perhaps instead of saying "well, people are scared so even if there's no good data to justify a ban, we should go ahead with fear driven law making", all good skeptics should be asking people to look at the evidence and make decisions using reason rather than emotion.

(I mean, this is the JREF, right?)

We are actually talking about the US. I'm not saying that there isn't good data to justify a ban. Just none that I've seen. That said I could not disagree with you more. It's a divisive point that won't solve anything but make the gun lobby look extreme. No background checks. No changes whatsoever. Instead keep the ATF from having a director and keep them from doing their job all the while demanding that a few ATF agents enforce all of the laws they've been handed. It doesn't appear that the gun lobby cares about anything but having every weapon possible regardless.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The slippery slope fallacy pervades the entire gun rights lobby. If they give an inch on anything, the result will be Hitler.

Even changes that are supported by the vast majority of voters are fought tooth and nail. For example, expanding background checks to cover private sales.

Yea, remember when they said they'd support universal background check legislation? That was, maybe, a week ago.

 

[Kestrel]

Did I say "everyone?" I certainly didn't mean "everyone." Only that I've seen the same memes pop up.

There actually is a parallel between Pitt Bulls and certain firearms. Pit Bulls have a reputation as one of the toughest breeds around. They attract the kind of owner that shouldn't be trusted with any dog. The guy who will train the thing to kill without caring that he is putting the neighbors at great risk.

A TEC-9 appeals to the kind of guy who needs a macho weapon to impress his friends. The same kind of guy who is likely to pull it out when he feels his manhood is threatened. It's not a sporting firearm, it's a piece of stamped out crap that fits the needs of urban drug dealers and spree killers.

 

[BStrong]

The slippery slope fallacy pervades the entire gun rights lobby. If they give an inch on anything, the result will be Hitler.

Even changes that are supported by the vast majority of voters are fought tooth and nail. For example, expanding background checks to cover private sales.

Please see proposed California law, Assembly Bill (AB) 174

http://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB174/id/720118

All currently possessed legally registered and possessed assault weapons would be subject to forfiture and/or confiscation.

AB 174, as introduced, Bonta. Weapons: grandfather clauses.
Existing law prohibits the possession of various weapons. Under
existing law, certain of these bans exempted from their scope weapons
that were possessed prior to the ban, if prescribed conditions met,
are authorized.
This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature to
subsequently amend this bill to include provisions that would end all
of those exemptions.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.

Two prior laws passed, citizens complied in good faith, Legislator wants to confiscate the legally possessed firearms.

Pretty clear slippery slope proof right there.

 

[Cleon]

There actually is a parallel between Pitt Bulls and certain firearms. Pit Bulls have a reputation as one of the toughest breeds around. They attract the kind of owner that shouldn't be trusted with any dog. The guy who will train the thing to kill without caring that he is putting the neighbors at great risk.

A TEC-9 appeals to the kind of guy who needs a macho weapon to impress his friends. The same kind of guy who is likely to pull it out when he feels his manhood is threatened. It's not a sporting firearm, it's a piece of stamped out crap that fits the needs of urban drug dealers and spree killers.

And yet, as a pitbull owner, I have no interest in training my dogs to kill. I like them better as lapdogs (not to mention they like it better that way). Most of the people I know who own pits feel the same way.

The people I know who own "assault weapons" are pretty much the same. They're not "urban drug dealers and spree killers," they're rednecks who enjoy collecting and target shooting.

So yeah, I agree there's a parallel there.

 

[BStrong]

And yet, as a pitbull owner, I have no interest in training my dogs to kill. I like them better as lapdogs (not to mention they like it better that way). Most of the people I know who own pits feel the same way.

The people I know who own "assault weapons" are pretty much the same. They're not "urban drug dealers and spree killers," they're rednecks who enjoy collecting and target shooting.

So yeah, I agree there's a parallel there.

In my world, the joke is that if you own a rifle with a piece of glass on it that costs more than your daily driver, you're a redneck.

The truth is that for every stereotypical (by outsiders) firearms owner, there's an individual with an advanced degree and a six figure income balancing things out.

 

[Mudcat]

Hey y'all, I hate to interrupt but allow me to interject:

This is not a gun ban debate!!!
This is a thread meant for semi-educational purposes about what exactly qualifies as an Assault Weapon. Let's keep the debate for other threads, please. This has been such a good and informative thread so far.