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

[RandFan]

In other words, every self defense weapon that has been invented in the last 120 years.

This is where I really find the debate to get bizarre. The denial that advances in weaponry have resulted in a light-wieght rifle with various features that make it more suitable and more able to kill lots of people in a short time. Particularly people in crowds. It's as if people are supposed to pretend there is little or no difference between a bolt action rifle and a rifle designed with the specification in mind for killing lots of people. Specifications like high rate of fire.

As if the above two riffles have no functional difference. That's what you want people to swallow.

Look, there is ample valid argument to argue against a so called "assault weapons" ban. Pretending that the term has no meaning is simply seen as absurd and laughable.

 

[BStrong]

This is where I really find the debate to get bizarre. The denial that advances in weaponry have resulted in a light-wieght rifle with various features that make it more suitable and more able to kill lots of people in a short time. Particularly people in crowds. It's as if people are supposed to pretend there is little or no difference between a bolt action rifle and a rifle designed with the specification in mind for killing lots of people. Specifications like high rate of fire.

[qimg]http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/526/militaryrifles.jpg[/qimg]

As if the above two riffles have no functional difference. That's what you want people to swallow.

Look, there is ample valid argument to argue against a so called "assault weapons" ban. Pretending that the term has no meaning is simply seen as absurd and laughable.

A better comparison would be a Ruger Mini14 and the AR platform - one is considered an AW, one is not, although they fire a similar cartridge from the same capacity magazines.

The 1903's shown above in your post were the top of the food chain in design at the time, and they now form the basis for every single sporting bolt action rifle (everything comes from Mauser one way or another) exempted from restriction by the proposed AW bill - never mind that they killed their share on the battlefield in two world wars, and are mangnitudes more powerful than the AW's described as being "high-powered" by folks who have absolutely no idea about what they're talking about.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

This is where I really find the debate to get bizarre. The denial that advances in weaponry have resulted in a light-wieght rifle with various features that make it more suitable and more able to kill lots of people in a short time. Particularly people in crowds. It's as if people are supposed to pretend there is little or no difference between a bolt action rifle and a rifle designed with the specification in mind for killing lots of people. Specifications like high rate of fire.

[qimg]http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/526/militaryrifles.jpg[/qimg]

As if the above two riffles have no functional difference. That's what you want people to swallow.

Look, there is ample valid argument to argue against a so called "assault weapons" ban. Pretending that the term has no meaning is simply seen as absurd and laughable.

And where does the post I was responding to state "rifles"?
Are you inferring that "assault weapons" refers only to long arms and not to pistols, revolvers, etc? The definition given was so nonspecific it could have included anything more advanced than a muzzle loader. "Assault weapons" also includes pistols and revolvers doesn't it? These both fit a_unique_persons description of an assault weapon.

 

[RandFan]

A better comparison would be a Ruger Mini14 and the AR platform - one is considered an AW, one is not, although they fire a similar cartridge from the same capacity magazines.

The 1903's shown above in your post were the top of the food chain in design at the time, and they now form the basis for every single sporting bolt action rifle (everything comes from Mauser one way or another) exempted from restriction by the proposed AW bill - never mind that they killed their share on the battlefield in two world wars, and are mangnitudes more powerful than the AW's described as being "high-powered" by folks who have absolutely no idea about what they're talking about.

I don't disagree with any of this. But the bolt action riffles of the time had problems that the military wanted to solve. Chiefly they wanted to be able to kill people faster and have features that would make it possible to kill more people faster.

Now, you have a perfectly good point that what made the WWI Springfield good for killing people also made it a good sporting weapon.

The point is that at the end of WWII the military wanted something that took the riffle into a very different direction which can be seen comparing the Springfield. Perhaps I should have shown a WWII carbine. But I did have a point. There is a tactical basis for all of the features that are found in a so called "assault weapon" that are not necessary for sports or even necessarily for self defense.

Now, let me concede that triforcharity has provided an excellent point by point comparison to justify the AR-15 as a good sports rifle. And while I think his argument is a good one I don't think it really alters the fact that the AR-15 wasn't designed to aid sportsman. It was designed to kill lots of people fast.

 

[RandFan]

And where does the post I was responding to state "rifles"?

My apologies for my presumption. Please to forgive me.

Are you inferring that "assault weapons" refers only to long arms and not to pistols, revolvers, etc? The definition given was so nonspecific it could have included anything more advanced than a muzzle loader. "Assault weapons" also includes pistols and revolvers doesn't it? These both fit a_unique_persons description of an assault weapon.

Yeah, I'm still at a complete loss as to your point. I think you are playing a game of gotcha and I don't find it particularly compelling. Odd thing is, I don't see a need to have a so called "assault weapons" ban. Also, it should be noted that I like guns. So, if you aren't getting your message across to me you might want to re-think it. In short, I think you are looking for a controversy where there is none. I've no problem with AUP's definition. If there are pistols that have the fire-rate and other advantages of the AR-15 or similar then include them in the definition. What's the problem?

Look, I get the problems of legally defining what an "assault weapon" is and that's fine in a court of law. But can't we, average human beings, admit that there is a reason why weapons like the AR-15 and AK47 are popular among military forces around the world and can we admit that the word "assault weapon" has a real meaning?

Otherwise it seems we are playing childish games that get us nowhere.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

My apologies for my presumption. Please to forgive me.

Yeah, I'm still at a complete loss as to your point. I think you are playing a game of gotcha and I don't find it particularly compelling. Odd thing is, I don't see a need to have a so called "assault weapons" ban. Also, it should be noted that I like guns. So, if you aren't getting your message across to me you might want to re-think it. In short, I think you are looking for a controversy where there is none. I've no problem with AUP's definition. If there are pistols that have the fire-rate and other advantages of the AR-15 or similar then include them in the definition. What's the problem?

Look, I get the problems of legally defining what an "assault weapon" is and that's fine in a court of law. But can't we, average human beings, admit that there is a reason why weapons like the AR-15 and AK47 are popular among military forces around the world and can we admit that the word "assault weapon" has a real meaning?

Otherwise it seems we are playing childish games that get us nowhere.

The point is that the very usage of the term "assault weapon" is to lend an air of legitimacy a broad, very general ban on on firearms that would be immediately rejected by the majority of voters without such camouflage. It has no meaning in any other context.
Passing legislation that bans "assault weapons" without having a clear definition of just what an assault weapon really is does nothing but open the door to a ban on all firearms that might conceivably be used for self defense.
Is a Mauser C96 and "assault weapon"? It fits AUP's definition. Is a Colt 1911 an AW? Again, it fits. How about a Mossberg 500? 3 for 3, so far.
Using AUP's definition, what modern self defense firearm would not be classified as an "assault weapon"?

 

[a_unique_person]

And where does the post I was responding to state "rifles"?
Are you inferring that "assault weapons" refers only to long arms and not to pistols, revolvers, etc? The definition given was so nonspecific it could have included anything more advanced than a muzzle loader. "Assault weapons" also includes pistols and revolvers doesn't it? These both fit a_unique_persons description of an assault weapon.

Technology advances, uses become mixed, things become more adaptable. You can get magazines for hand guns with a ridiculous amount of bullets now. The assault rifle is more useful for killing in the sense that you can control the weapon better when directing fire at a target.

 

[RandFan]

The point is that the very usage of the term "assault weapon" is to lend an air of legitimacy a broad, very general ban on on firearms that would be immediately rejected by the majority of voters without such camouflage. It has no meaning in any other context.
Passing legislation that bans "assault weapons" without having a clear definition of just what an assault weapon really is does nothing but open the door to a ban on all firearms that might conceivably be used for self defense.
Is a Mauser C96 and "assault weapon"? It fits AUP's definition. Is a Colt 1911 an AW? Again, it fits. How about a Mossberg 500? 3 for 3, so far.
Using AUP's definition, what modern self defense firearm would not be classified as an "assault weapon"?

I've allready conceded the legal problems of designating a so called "assault weapon" so, again, I'm at a loss. The point of the OP, IMO, is to understand what people generally mean when they are talking about so called "assault weapons". The purpose ISN'T what will pass legal muster. By the intent of the OP I think AUP's definition is just fine. It could be improved but not by much.

BTW: I think the strategy of the pro-gun crowd that refuses to give even an inch in this discussion is to play Loki's Wager. There is a gradient between say a typical long barrel, long stock, bolt action hunting rifle like my old faithful Winchester 30.06 and what are actually designated as assault rifles (I know the term is "weapon" but bear with me here).

It's that equivocation that bothers me. It's a pretense. "Assault weapon"? What the hell is an assault weapon? There is no such thing as an assault weapon. First rule of assault weapon's club is don't talk about assult weapons.

It's like arguing that there is no such thing as night because one cannot determine the precise moment when day becomes night.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Technology advances, uses become mixed, things become more adaptable. You can get magazines for hand guns with a ridiculous amount of bullets now. The assault rifle is more useful for killing in the sense that you can control the weapon better when directing fire at a target.

Again, using your definition, what modern firearm, typically used as a self defense weapon, would not be classified as an "assault weapon"?

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

I've allready conceded the legal problems of designating a so called "assault weapon" so, again, I'm at a loss. The point of the OP, IMO, is to understand what people generally mean when they are talking about so called "assault weapons". The purpose ISN'T what will pass legal muster. By the intent of the OP I think AUP's definition is just fine. It could be improved but not by much.

BTW: I think the strategy of the pro-gun crowd that refuses to give even an inch in this discussion is to play Loki's Wager. There is a gradient between say a typical long barrel, long stock, bolt action hunting rifle like my old faithful Winchester 30.06 and what are actually designated as assault rifles (I know the term is "weapon" but bear with me here).

It's that equivocation that bothers me. It's a pretense. "Assault weapon"? What the hell is an assault weapon? There is no such thing as an assault weapon. First rule of assault weapon's club is don't talk about assult weapons.

It's like arguing that there is no such thing as night because one cannot determine the precise moment when day becomes night.

And just where should that "inch" be given? I don't see "let us ban anything we want" as any sort of compromise.

 

[RandFan]

And just where should that "inch" be given? I don't see "let us ban anything we want" as any sort of compromise.

• I'm against an assault weapons ban.
• I know of no current weapon that is already in the public domain that I would support banning.
• I think we ought to be honest in our dialog. There's nothing wrong with pointing out the legal problems of banning so called "assault weapons". There is something very wrong, IMO, in pretending that there is no such thing as an assault weapon.

 

[a_unique_person]

The point is that the very usage of the term "assault weapon" is to lend an air of legitimacy a broad, very general ban on on firearms that would be immediately rejected by the majority of voters without such camouflage. It has no meaning in any other context.
Passing legislation that bans "assault weapons" without having a clear definition of just what an assault weapon really is does nothing but open the door to a ban on all firearms that might conceivably be used for self defense.
Is a Mauser C96 and "assault weapon"? It fits AUP's definition. Is a Colt 1911 an AW? Again, it fits. How about a Mossberg 500? 3 for 3, so far.
Using AUP's definition, what modern self defense firearm would not be classified as an "assault weapon"?

They don't, at all. You just said they do because it suits you. I gave what I think is a brief history of the assault weapon. The German STG44 gives you the basic look and intent of the weapon. That's not a pistol, or a long barrel rifle.

 

[a_unique_person]

And just where should that "inch" be given? I don't see "let us ban anything we want" as any sort of compromise.

Again you are playing games with definitions. The law regularly compromises on definitions, because there is no other choice. For example, murder is not a simple thing to define. So we have degrees and considerations of circumstances.

 

[BStrong]

I don't disagree with any of this. But the bolt action riffles of the time had problems that the military wanted to solve. Chiefly they wanted to be able to kill people faster and have features that would make it possible to kill more people faster.

Now, you have a perfectly good point that what made the WWI Springfield good for killing people also made it a good sporting weapon.

The point is that at the end of WWII the military wanted something that took the riffle into a very different direction which can be seen comparing the Springfield. Perhaps I should have shown a WWII carbine. But I did have a point. There is a tactical basis for all of the features that are found in a so called "assault weapon" that are not necessary for sports or even necessarily for self defense.

Now, let me concede that triforcharity has provided an excellent point by point comparison to justify the AR-15 as a good sports rifle. And while I think his argument is a good one I don't think it really alters the fact that the AR-15 wasn't designed to aid sportsman. It was designed to kill lots of people fast.

Rand - earlier in the thread I explained this misconception, but I'll do so again.

After WWII, when the science of Battlefield Calculus was applied to small arms design, it was determined that wounding an enemy combatant was a more valuable result than killing him (strategic v. tactical considerations) in that in wounding an enemy, at the very least one other combatant is diverted from the fight initially to remove the wounded individual, and the further drain of resources required for medical attention etc. is a more valuable result than simply killing that same combatant.

And again, the '03 Springfield's shown in the pic you posted were state of the art military rifles in their day, and aside from the Garand, they (and the Mauser, Enfield and Mosin Nagant) have accounted for more deaths in war than the later Assault Rifles have racked up

 

[a_unique_person]

Rand - earlier in the thread I explained this misconception, but I'll do so again.

After WWII, when the science of Battlefield Calculus was applied to small arms design, it was determined that wounding an enemy combatant was a more valuable result than killing him (strategic v. tactical considerations) in that in wounding an enemy, at the very least one other combatant is diverted from the fight initially to remove the wounded individual, and the further drain of resources required for medical attention etc. is a more valuable result than simply killing that same combatant.

And again, the '03 Springfield's shown in the pic you posted were state of the art military rifles in their day, and aside from the Garand, they (and the Mauser, Enfield and Mosin Nagant) have accounted for more deaths in war than the later Assault Rifles have racked up

That is because warfare has changed. The infantry facing each other in massed lines ready to slaughter each other concept has gone. Instead of a massed volley giving you firepower at a distance, the concept now is close in, and mass firepower from high rate of fire from less weapons, for infantry. The infantry now play a much smaller part in warfare, it's now air power and armor doing most of the killing.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

They don't, at all.

They don't? Let's look at your definition:

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.

Mauser C96:
1.lightweight
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, etc.

Colt M1911:
1.lightweight
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, etc.

Mossberg 500:
1.lightweight
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, etc.

Under your definition all of these ( along with virtually all modern firearms used for self defense) would be considered assault weapons. In effect you are asking for a ban on the 2nd Amendment.

You just said they do because it suits you. I gave what I think is a brief history of the assault weapon. The German STG44 gives you the basic look and intent of the weapon. That's not a pistol, or a long barrel rifle.

The StG44 was an assault rifle. Assault rifles have a very specific definition, and it doesn't come close to your definition of an "assault weapon". An assault weapon could be anything.

 

[RandFan]

Rand - earlier in the thread I explained this misconception, but I'll do so again.

After WWII, when the science of Battlefield Calculus was applied to small arms design, it was determined that wounding an enemy combatant was a more valuable result than killing him (strategic v. tactical considerations) in that in wounding an enemy, at the very least one other combatant is diverted from the fight initially to remove the wounded individual, and the further drain of resources required for medical attention etc. is a more valuable result than simply killing that same combatant.

And again, the '03 Springfield's shown in the pic you posted were state of the art military rifles in their day, and aside from the Garand, they (and the Mauser, Enfield and Mosin Nagant) have accounted for more deaths in war than the later Assault Rifles have racked up

BStrong, I've read an awful lot since your lecture. I respect your opinion but you oversimplify a very complex issue. To say that the military did not want their shinny new weapons to kill people is disingenuous. They wanted a high fire capacity weapon. One that would in fact kill. Causing serious wounds to enemy combatants was also a plus. There was no single spec for the weapon. However, the specs did result in a weapon that is very capable of killing lots of people in a short amount of time (I'm willing to bet you would admit that, right?). Also, I think you and I both know that the military didn't ask, "give us a weapon that will only wound" or "give us a weapon that cannot kill or is unlikely to kill".

 

[BStrong]

That is because warfare has changed. The infantry facing each other in massed lines ready to slaughter each other concept has gone. Instead of a massed volley giving you firepower at a distance, the concept now is close in, and mass firepower from high rate of fire from less weapons, for infantry. The infantry now play a much smaller part in warfare, it's now air power and armor doing most of the killing.

I believe that you missed part of small arms development somehow, because long before the AR came on the scene, with heavy MG's (watercooled) and Light MG's (aircooled, belt or mag fed) taking over any type of volley fire duties and providing a base of fire for infabtry to manuver and close with the enemy, and killing the enemy was still the order of the day.

That changed because of bean counters, not tactical considerations.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Again you are playing games with definitions. The law regularly compromises on definitions, because there is no other choice. For example, murder is not a simple thing to define. So we have degrees and considerations of circumstances.

It's apparent there are games being played here, but I'm not the one playing them.
The games are being played by people who propose a ban on certain firearms and then refuse to define exactly what those certain firearms are.
The law does not compromise on definitions by making the definition so vague it could be applied indiscriminately.
An "assault weapons" ban, without a specific definition of exactly what constitutes an "assault weapon" not only does just that, it appears to be the very intent of passing such a law.

 

[RandFan]

It's apparent there are games being played here, but I'm not the one playing them.
The games are being played by people who propose a ban on certain firearms and then refuse to define exactly what those certain firearms are.
The law does not compromise on definitions by making the definition so vague it could be applied indiscriminately.
An "assault weapons" ban, without a specific definition of exactly what constitutes an "assault weapon" not only does just that, it appears to be the very intent of passing such a law.

Please to go back and read the OP. The poster would like to know what an assault weapon is. He's not looking for a definition that will pass legal muster nor is he interested in a gun debate.

Please go back and read the OP.