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

[Darth Rotor]

The term "assault weapon" was an attack by stupid. It has infected some people here.

I note a few examples.
Question: what makes an assault weapon?

I would say a semiautomatic weapon

Wrong. My Berretta 9mm was not an assault weapon.

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

Wrong. And stupid. See Lanza's mom.

Political affiliation

Wrong. Stupid labeling in legislation.

Assault weapons are semi automatic variants of select fire military weapons marketed to guys who want to play Rambo with real guns.

Wrong. Your assumption of why people do what they do is crap.

Spree killers are highly trained an --

Wrong. But I appreciate your attempt at humor.

It all begins with the manufacture of a class of military weapons known as assault rifles. Those weapons were put together for a particular purpose in various sorts of medium to close range tactical fights.

An assault rifle is intended, as the Thompson Machine Gun, the prototype assault rifle, was intended, to allows small units to use automatic fire to close with and overwhelm opponents in small unit engagements. The Thompson's original purpose in design was as one of many innovations arrived at to break trench warfare. (Rommel's storm troop tactics of WW I were a better way, FWIW)

In time, and with a nod to Kestrel, a variety of NON AUTOMATIC weapons, like AR-15 variants (the original AR-15 and M-16 rifles were in fact auto fire weapons) were put on the market with the out of the box feature of automatic fire, or ability to select it, not available.

I know a few people who were pretty handy, and who were Viet Nam Vets, who arrived at very simple mods to turn into AUTO capable non AUTO capable rifles out of the box.

You can digress into AK 47 and SKS discussions all you like, they all smell and taste much the same.

And then the politicians got involved, and the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 got involved, and we ended up with a fiction for a legal term. It is my belief that some of the people involved with drafting that legislation knew a few folks like my vet friends.

An AR-15, semi auto, with a 20 round clip, out of the box, if for damned sure not an assault rifle, and I'd be a crook if I told any actual soldier who was in combat otherwise.
He needs an M4, and M-16, an AK-47, or a whole host of other no **** assault rifles for his small unit engagements.

An "assault weapon?"

A legal fiction, and a term invented for political purposes.

It's got bloody **** all to do with firearms designed for assault.

 

[tyr_13]

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

I'm actually aware how background checks happen, at least here in New York where I've filled out that form a few times myself. While I said 'ID check', that's not exactly all the system I use entails either.

I sell cell phones, contract phones specifically. This entails not only identification (three forms), but also credit checks and history with the provider and other providers. This lets the system know if they have outstanding say, hardware not returned to another provider. While the specifics never make it as far as me, it's fairly easy to deduce with some questions to the customer as to what the issue is. I don't think criminal background checks are just as easy because they have to be more accurate and have many more layers of systems to deal with, but it can be done.

As for those avoiding the law, well yeah, some will. Like I said, police will still have to do police work. The first arrest under the NYS SAFE act happened in my county last week. They guy sold an undercover cop two different rifles, an AK and AR platform both with ammo and bayonets even. This was even after the undercover cop told the man that he had previous felony convictions. I almost started a thread on it. It's exactly the type of thing the ATF should be doing better. There are very few gun advocates who would defend what that lawbreaker did.

EDIT: And my county, Chautauqua, compares well to European nations as far as rates of gun crime go overall, yet somehow they found time to go looking. Cut out Dunkirk, and it's one of the least gun or violent crime counties in New York.

To put it another way, alcohol sales to minors face the same problem, but guess what? No one (or almost no one) is trying to get that law repealed. It's not perfect, but it helps with very, very little intrusion.

 

[Noztradamus]

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.

Except "Assault Weapon" is a nebulous term definesd by features specified by people whose sole intent is the banning of same

The features specified are either
1. Functionly meaningless
2. If have objective meaning could equally specify "Ranch Rifle"

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

I'm still going with, "black, scary, bangy, thingy".
After all, most of 'em are black (M16, Glock, Beretta 92), or could be black if you squint your eyes in just the right light.
They're also scary. Just ask any of the anti-gun weenies here. A little pee pee goes down their legs every time they see one.
I don't know anybody who'll argue with the bangy part, which also produces the aforementioned bodily release, and not just with anti-gun weenies. It's been a while since I was in a gun fight, but I remember being glad I went commando that day.
I'm not so sure about "thingy", though. Some people might say it lacks specificity.
Nope. "Thingy's" good, too. Leaves room for more stuff to ban.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

So, yeah, back to the topic of what is and isn't . . .

http://media2.wptv.com//photo/2013/03/19/xucf_20130319171824_320_240.JPG

This is the "assault rifle" Seevakumaran was going to use in his rampage at UCF the other day, before he decided to reorder his to-do list. Anyway, the rifle looks pretty scary, right? Pistol grip, high capacity drum magazine, grippy black furniture on the front end . . .

.22LR caliber, semiauto, tactically styled rifle.

Here's a chart showing an array of bullets for size comparison. The .22LR rimfire is #1, the dinky thing on the far left. The rifles used by Lanza, Holmes, etc used #16, .223 or 5.56mm. (url only, large image)
http://yunoinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/1268470881467.jpg
In terms of power, the muzzle energy of a .22LR bullet is about 100 ft/lbs +- depending on brand and barrel length; the muzzle energy of a .223 bullet is around 1700 ft/lbs.

 

[WildCat]

So, yeah, back to the topic of what is and isn't . . .

http://media2.wptv.com//photo/2013/03/19/xucf_20130319171824_320_240.JPG

This is the "assault rifle" Seevakumaran was going to use in his rampage at UCF the other day, before he decided to reorder his to-do list. Anyway, the rifle looks pretty scary, right? Pistol grip, high capacity drum magazine, grippy black furniture on the front end . . .

.22LR caliber, semiauto, tactically styled rifle.

Here's a chart showing an array of bullets for size comparison. The .22LR rimfire is #1, the dinky thing on the far left. The rifles used by Lanza, Holmes, etc used #16, .223 or 5.56mm. (url only, large image)
http://yunoinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/1268470881467.jpg
In terms of power, the muzzle energy of a .22LR bullet is about 100 ft/lbs +- depending on brand and barrel length; the muzzle energy of a .223 bullet is around 1700 ft/lbs.

What, they didn't issue you semi-auto .22LR as your primary weapon in the military?

 

[thaiboxerken]

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.

If only the Republicans would let the ATF have a director....

They cry the mantra "we just need more enforcement". However, they do what they can to keep the government from doing exactly that.

 

[thaiboxerken]

What, they didn't issue you semi-auto .22LR as your primary weapon in the military?

Is that weapon harmless, in your opinion? It can't be used to kill people?

 

[Cleon]

Is that weapon harmless, in your opinion? It can't be used to kill people?

Don't be silly. Every firearm can be used to kill people. That's not a useful way to distinguish between "assault weapons" and non-"assault weapons."

 

[Polaris]

Is that weapon harmless, in your opinion? It can't be used to kill people?

By that standard every piano is strung with a whole arsenal of assault weapons.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Don't be silly. Every firearm can be used to kill people. That's not a useful way to distinguish between "assault weapons" and non-"assault weapons."

Ok. Is it semi automatic?

 

[thaiboxerken]

By that standard every piano is strung with a whole arsenal of assault weapons.

Really? I thought my first question established that we were talking about a weapon.

 

[RandFan]

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?

Re: Gun shows. Could be something I'm missing. Sorry if I'm getting this wrong.

From 2004 to 2006, ATF conducted surveillance and undercover investigations at 195 gun shows (approximately 2% of all shows). Specific targeting of suspected individuals (77%) resulted in 121 individual arrests and 5,345 firearms seizures. Seventy nine of the 121 ATF operation plans were known suspects previously under investigation.[1]

It would seem that "gun show" is the number 1 priority of the ATF. Still without a director of course.

Will city cops be required to go into laundromats and arrest anyone with a "gun for sale" 3x5 card on the bulletin board?

If you otherwise start a business without a proper license they damn sure will show up very often if not most of the time. So yeah, that's what I would expect. More importantly, a person who sold such a weapon that was later used in a crime could be both civil and criminally exposed.

I can't sell my car without the proper paperwork. If I do and someone dies from an accident caused by someone else I'm in for a world of hurt. Why all of a sudden is it that it's impossible to sell a gun by following simple rules?

 

[a_unique_person]

Save your gun debates and rhetoric for the next "[insert name here] shoots and kills [insert name here] at [insert place here]" thread, because this isn't the thread for it.

I started this thread as gun illiterate person who's legitimately interested in what exactly qualifies an Assault Weapon, but it doesn't exactly get defined. How come combat knives aren't considered Assault Weapons, for example. They're clearly designed to kill, disarm, or severely injure others and their name makes it quite clear that they are designed to be a weapon used for combat.

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?

An assault weapon is one made to be effective and convenient in the mass killing of people at close quarters. This is effectively down with guns by making them

1) Relatively compact and light.
2) Able to fire rapidly
3) Able to hold plenty of ammunition and change it quickly
4) Able to be used in relatively confined spaces, that is, urban areas, offices, etc.

The idea is to be able to quickly and conveniently kill the most number of people in an setting where you would typically find plenty of people.

 

[Bill Thompson]

It is like this question:

What exactly makes an Assault Power Drill an Assault Power Drill in the first place?

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

The same thing that makes an Assault Douche Bag and Assault Douche Bag in the first place.

It is not the Douche Bag.... or is it?

 

[Polaris]

An assault weapon is one made to be effective and convenient in the mass killing of people at close quarters. This is effectively down with guns by making them

1) Relatively compact and light.
2) Able to fire rapidly
3) Able to hold plenty of ammunition and change it quickly
4) Able to be used in relatively confined spaces, that is, urban areas, offices, etc.

The idea is to be able to quickly and conveniently kill the most number of people in an setting where you would typically find plenty of people.

Oddly enough, this would rule out quite a few "assault rifles" (the FN-FAL springs to mind), plus actual belt-fed machine guns.

What you're describing sounds more like submachine-guns than assault rifles, which are meant for short to medium ranges (around 100 yards or less) and not CQB.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

An assault weapon is one made to be effective and convenient in the mass killing of people at close quarters. This is effectively down with guns by making them

1) Relatively compact and light.
2) Able to fire rapidly
3) Able to hold plenty of ammunition and change it quickly
4) Able to be used in relatively confined spaces, that is, urban areas, offices, etc.

The idea is to be able to quickly and conveniently kill the most number of people in an setting where you would typically find plenty of people.

In other words, every self defense weapon that has been invented in the last 120 years.
Using this definition what firearm, suitable for self defense, would not be considered an "assault weapon"?

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Re: Gun shows. Could be something I'm missing. Sorry if I'm getting this wrong.

It would seem that "gun show" is the number 1 priority of the ATF. Still without a director of course.

If you otherwise start a business without a proper license they damn sure will show up very often if not most of the time. So yeah, that's what I would expect. More importantly, a person who sold such a weapon that was later used in a crime could be both civil and criminally exposed.

I can't sell my car without the proper paperwork. If I do and someone dies from an accident caused by someone else I'm in for a world of hurt. Why all of a sudden is it that it's impossible to sell a gun by following simple rules?

You don't go to prison and have your life ruined if you put a "Y" on the automobile title transfer instead of a "yes".
Look at the resources the BATF has directed at "gun shows" and compare it to the results produced. Not to mention that many of these "gun show" criminals were already under investigation to begin with.
The real waste of time, money, and resources by the BATF comes not from "gun show" investigations, which while they don't produce enough results to justify the money spent, at least occasionally result in convicting a real criminal, it's in the vast amount of those resources they waste harassing otherwise law abiding citizens, and constructing "technical cases" to justify their existence.
Here's an interesting link:
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju26765.000/hju26765_0.htm
I apologize to the more enlightened members on this thread, as it does not come from Mother Jones or the Daily Worker. I was forced to rely on sworn testimony before Congress.

 

[RandFan]

You don't go to prison and have your life ruined if you put a "Y" on the automobile title transfer instead of a "yes".
Look at the resources the BATF has directed at "gun shows" and compare it to the results produced. Not to mention that many of these "gun show" criminals were already under investigation to begin with.
The real waste of time, money, and resources by the BATF comes not from "gun show" investigations, which while they don't produce enough results to justify the money spent, at least occasionally result in convicting a real criminal, it's in the vast amount of those resources they waste harassing otherwise law abiding citizens, and constructing "technical cases" to justify their existence.
Here's an interesting link:
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju26765.000/hju26765_0.htm
I apologize to the more enlightened members on this thread, as it does not come from Mother Jones or the Daily Worker. I was forced to rely on sworn testimony before Congress.

[citations missing]

I'm sorry but this is rambling and I've not a clue as to what you are on about so I can't really respond much. The car registration example was to counter the notion that cops wouldn't care and would ignore those who are illegally selling guns. That's specious for many reasons.

Further, you make unsubstantiated claims about BATF and post a link to congressional testimony without any summary or anything to give us a clue why anyone should read it. You just say "here's an interesting link" as if anyone should care. Hey, here's an interesting link.

Chuck, it would help a lot if you could have a point. It would also help if you could explain what you think your links prove and how. It would also be helpful if you would use a pull quote to reinforce your point. Finally, if you are going to make empirical claims (see highlighted text) it would be really helpful if you would not forget to include your citations.

 

[a_unique_person]

Oddly enough, this would rule out quite a few "assault rifles" (the FN-FAL springs to mind), plus actual belt-fed machine guns.

What you're describing sounds more like submachine-guns than assault rifles, which are meant for short to medium ranges (around 100 yards or less) and not CQB.

The assault weapon has evolved over time, and there are different ideas about how best to implement it. The Germans came up with the first assault weapon, which was to be the model for the AK47. The Americans rethought the idea and came up with the M16. The AK47 has the problem that the bullet is bigger and recoil is stronger, so harder to control. The M16 has a better recoil, with smaller bullets, so you can better direct high speed fire. Both strategies have their advantages and disadvantages. The thing is, they were based on the idea that the old long range rifle with a big bullet, the traditional army weapon, was not all that useful when it came to close up warfare. If you wanted to kill a lot of people up close, the assault weapon was what you wanted.

Now, if you are going to pin down the exact definition of a weapon, and put it in legal terms, that isn't going to work too well. People ridicule the attempt to control assault guns because you can't make a neat and simple definition of what they are. Well, you can't, but that isn't the fault of those trying to control them. Like much legislation, you just do the best you can, while being aware you can't make your definitions perfect and complete.