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

[Kestrel]

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.

I can understand owning a good deer rifle and a beater truck when you live in a rural area. That rifle will put meat on the table for years to come. Take care of it and your grandson can put it to the same use. And in an area with rough roads, a new truck will start to look like an old one in only a few years.

 

[Kestrel]

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.

I appreciate this, but you are trying to stop a force of nature. All Internet discussion of guns will turn into gun ban debates on their way to discussing Hitler.

 

[Mudcat]

I appreciate this, but you are trying to stop a force of nature.

Doesn't mean I shouldn't try. I think this can be a fun and informative thread if we keep it on track and away from gun debates, which is something quite a few people seem to be tired of here.

All Internet discussion of guns will turn into gun ban debates on their way to discussing Hitler.

What is the name of this Internet law?

 

[Kestrel]

Doesn't mean I shouldn't try. I think this can be a fun and informative thread if we keep it on track and away from gun debates, which is something quite a few people seem to be tired of here.

Yes, you should try. I tossed out a proposed definition and nobody seems to want to discuss it.

 

[BStrong]

Doesn't mean I shouldn't try. I think this can be a fun and informative thread if we keep it on track and away from gun debates, which is something quite a few people seem to be tired of here.



What is the name of this Internet law?

Goodwins.

 

[Mudcat]

Goodwins.

I thought that was the one that stated that that comparing to someone to Hitler or the Nazis becomes statistically more likely the longer an Internet debate goes on?

 

[RandFan]

I thought that was the one that stated that that comparing to someone to Hitler or the Nazis becomes statistically more likely the longer an Internet debate goes on?

Yes, and it's the fallacious nature of the comparison (Nazis being the most iconic of evil) and not the bringing up of similarities between WWII Germany, Nazis and Hitler compared to some other entity. It's just an observation of human nature. It's not a law or a fallacy per se. If after some point a debater stoops to accusing his opponent of being a Nazi or like Hitler or fascist in an attempt to poison the well then the individual has been considered to have left the reservation (not arguing in good faith).

 

[Mudcat]

Yes, and it's the fallacious nature of the comparison (Nazis being the most iconic of evil) and not the bringing up of similarities between WWII Germany, Nazis and Hitler compared to some other entity. It's just an observation of human nature. It's not a law or a fallacy per se. If after some point a debater stoops to accusing his opponent of being a Nazi or like Hitler or fascist in an attempt to poison the well then the individual has been considered to have left the reservation (not arguing in good faith).

Okay, but my original question (that somehow led into a derail into the discussion and defining Godwin's Law and Poisoning the Well) was "Is there an Internet law (similar to Godwin) that dictates that any gun thread will eventually turn into a gun debate?"

I may have worded it incorrectly the first time round.

 

[RandFan]

Okay, but my original question (that somehow led into a derail into the discussion and defining Godwin's Law and Poisoning the Well) was "Is there an Internet law (similar to Godwin) that dictates that any gun thread will eventually turn into a gun debate?"

I may have worded it incorrectly the first time round.

Yeah, you've a difficult row to hoe but you've done, IMO, an admirable job of it.

 

[jimbob]

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 as you implied, cosmetics are important. Many people want their weapons to look dangerous.

 

[BStrong]

And as you implied, cosmetics are important. Many people want their weapons to look dangerous.

And the truth of the matter wrt all of the TEC series of semi auto pistols is that they are notorious for failing to feed, fire and eject. Bad magazines, poor manufacturing and substandard materials. the design doesn't use stampings though - it's a tube receiver design.

Other than the original Interdynamic KG pistols (KG9 & 99) and the actual factory SMG (MP9) the design is a better paperweight than firearm - a great gun for bad actors to rely on.

I know guys in Hollywood prop shops having to work around the clock during a production to make those POS work for the duration of the filming.

 

[Polaris]

And the truth of the matter wrt all of the TEC series of semi auto pistols is that they are notorious for failing to feed, fire and eject. Bad magazines, poor manufacturing and substandard materials. the design doesn't use stampings though - it's a tube receiver design.

Other than the original Interdynamic KG pistols (KG9 & 99) and the actual factory SMG (MP9) the design is a better paperweight than firearm - a great gun for bad actors to rely on.

I know guys in Hollywood prop shops having to work around the clock during a production to make those POS work for the duration of the filming.

I had occasion once to fire a TEC-9 and had no issues, but by and large the weapon was a clunky piece of garbage that just looked scary. I do still own a TEC-22, though I never fire it after an overloaded cartridge blew the front sight post off and replacement parts are impossible to find (the 1994 AWB put Intratec out of business).

 

[BStrong]

I had occasion once to fire a TEC-9 and had no issues, but by and large the weapon was a clunky piece of garbage that just looked scary. I do still own a TEC-22, though I never fire it after an overloaded cartridge blew the front sight post off and replacement parts are impossible to find (the 1994 AWB put Intratec out of business).

I've handled and tested bunches of them over the years, and there was not a one (other than factory MP 9 SMG's) that I would trust to do anything but malfunction.

Even the earliest pre-11-1-81 open bolt KG-9's had problems with heat treating on the bolts - the sear engagement notch would erode away within 500 rounds m/l leaving the piece unusable. By the time most owners found this out the hard way, there were only aftermarket bolts available that were in themselves a registerable item - no repair parts for you! - and these owners had to find someone (me) that could rebuild the piece into the KG 99 closed bolt configuration.

Like I said, good piece for bad guys.

 

[triforcharity]

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?

False equivelance and argument from personal ignorance noted.

Comparing guns to nuclear weapons is rediculous, and you know it. Just as comparing guns and swimming pools is silly too, right???

Secondly, nuclear weapons are not held in common use, as has been the standard for some time.

Dismissed to further educate yourself, so you can avoid looking like a damn fool....

 

[triforcharity]

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.

I can second this. I also own a pit bull, though you wouldn't know it. He's a chicken ****. Afraid to go outside by himself at night, and afraid of the dark.

But, because he is a pit bull, he's considered dangerous. You're only in danger if you're a dog treat...

/OT derail

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

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.

My beef with background checks for private sales is I think it's a waste of legislative time that won't prevent crime and will result in a waste of law enforcement resources. There is absolutely no way to enforce this under the current structure. There's no control-point at which compliance can be monitored and enforced. And don't say "gun shows" because that's a small fraction of the total non-commercial gun sales. I've bought and sold guns person-to-person several times. I sold one to a friend, another to a relative, I bought one through a classified ad and recently sold two things I didn't want anymore using Armslist.com. Is Armslist going to be "illegal" in Colorado now? How the hell is that going to work? Will city cops be required to go into laundromats and arrest anyone with a "gun for sale" 3x5 card on the bulletin board?

 

[tyr_13]

My beef with background checks for private sales is I think it's a waste of legislative time that won't prevent crime and will result in a waste of law enforcement resources. There is absolutely no way to enforce this under the current structure. There's no control-point at which compliance can be monitored and enforced. And don't say "gun shows" because that's a small fraction of the total non-commercial gun sales. I've bought and sold guns person-to-person several times. I sold one to a friend, another to a relative, I bought one through a classified ad and recently sold two things I didn't want anymore using Armslist.com. Is Armslist going to be "illegal" in Colorado now? How the hell is that going to work? Will city cops be required to go into laundromats and arrest anyone with a "gun for sale" 3x5 card on the bulletin board?

I do several id checks a day on average, using a computer system. It works well 95% of the time.

Yes, police would have to do, you know, police work. It isn't foolproof but it helps.

I'm honestly confused as to your objection.

 

[Kestrel]

My beef with background checks for private sales is I think it's a waste of legislative time that won't prevent crime and will result in a waste of law enforcement resources. There is absolutely no way to enforce this under the current structure. There's no control-point at which compliance can be monitored and enforced. And don't say "gun shows" because that's a small fraction of the total non-commercial gun sales. I've bought and sold guns person-to-person several times. I sold one to a friend, another to a relative, I bought one through a classified ad and recently sold two things I didn't want anymore using Armslist.com. Is Armslist going to be "illegal" in Colorado now? How the hell is that going to work? Will city cops be required to go into laundromats and arrest anyone with a "gun for sale" 3x5 card on the bulletin board?

Colorado's new law still allows private sales, but the deal must be concluded at a licensed dealers shop. The dealer does the background check and registers the firearm in return for a small fee. There are exemptions for sales or transfers to close relatives.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I do several id checks a day on average, using a computer system. It works well 95% of the time.

Yes, police would have to do, you know, police work. It isn't foolproof but it helps.

I'm honestly confused as to your objection.

Perhaps your confusion is my fault.

A firearms purchase background check is not an "id check." It requires filling out a form, (ATF 4473) the content of which is then submitted by a licensed firearms dealer to (in Colorado) the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, where over worked datamonkeys check the information submitted against several databases. If the submitted information does not raise flags the purchase can proceed. Normally this takes 8 to 20 minutes, but the post-Sandy Hook panic purchase frenzy put sufficient backlog of requests that for a while it was 8 to 10 days. I don't have actual data to support this theory, but talking with people behind the counter at my local pawn shops and one of the sporting goods stores lead me to believe that many people were submitting 4473's at multiple locations. Colorado might start charging a fee to submit the 4473, which might or might not cut back on this kind of thing.

If a person buys a firearm from online auction site Gunbroker, the firearm will be shipped to a licensed dealer who will, for a fee of $30 average, perform the background check and do any other required paperwork to transfer the firearm from state-to-state.

Now, we in CO have a new requirement to perform background checks for person-to-person sales.
http://www.jamestownsun.com/event/article/id/182263/group/News/

My objection is not that this law puts an undue burden or expense on the consumer, nor that it violates the 2nd amendment. My objection is that many consumers will either tell themselves it does or simply object to the requirement, making the law a waste of time for legislators to pass and a waste of time for police departments if they're required to go wumpus-hunting for illegal transactions (like my laundromat bulletin board example upthread). Unlike a firearm purchase that involves the US Postal system, a person-to-person transaction has no control point to enforce compliance. The law is stupid because it's unenforceable. Several county sheriffs have already gone on record with the same objection.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2013/0...nforce-Colorado-s-tough-new-gun-control-bills

{edit to add}

So what's going to happen is a large number of scofflaws, 2nd amendment evangelists and general nonconformists will find ways to have these transactions without complying. For example, the other day I saw an image on randompics of a craigslist ad or something for a $1600 "toilet paper holder" -- an AR15 with a roll of TP on the barrel sitting on a coffee table. Stupid, yes, but only one of many possible dodges people will try.

{eta again: found image}
http://www.randompics.net/?p=56550

 

[Kestrel]

To avoid a background check, both the buyer and seller have to agree to a criminal act. Yes, some "gun rights purists" will do exactly that. But after a couple of sting operations, it might not look like such a good idea.

BATF traces might also trigger enforcement actions when a trace leads to an individual that clearly owned that firearm after the new law takes effect. Also, the law makes it clear that a seller who skips the background check remains responsible for what is done with that firearm.