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

[Chuck Guiteau]

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.

And mudcat is as well served by the definition I gave (a black, scary, bangy thing) as the one provided by AUP.

 

[RandFan]

And mudcat is as well served by the definition I gave (a black, scary, bangy thing) as the one provided by AUP.

And that is where I think many gun rights advocates screw the pooch. I don't believe for one moment that you believe that. I believe you think that serves a political goal but in the long run I think you are mistaken. JMO. The assault weapon ban will fail as it should but, again IMO, your case is not made better by your pretense.

I'll say what I said before, there are real specs for weapons that can fire at high rates and have features that folks who are not afraid of having some bit of rhetoric used in ways not intended would not hesitate to use the term "assault weapon". And in fact the term is very widely used and understood by gun aficionados (see my Youtube video link I posted earlier). I think most people can tell when folks are being coy politically.

 

[RandFan]

Assault weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Assault weapon - Merriam-Webster Online

Perhaps we could have a discussion about what people mean by assault weapons/rifles and not a gun debate as was intended by the OP. Perhaps people could be serious and actually provide some insight. Hint: Big scary weapon is just political rhetoric, it's propaganda and helps nothing.

To Mudcat: The following link is very helpful in my opinion. I don't agree with it completely but I think it will give you some background as to what those on the pro-gun side think of "assault weapons" and "assault riffles".

The Truth About Assault Weapons

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

I'll say what I said before, there are real specs for weapons that can fire at high rates and have features that folks who are not afraid of having some bit of rhetoric used in ways not intended would not hesitate to use the term "assault weapon".

Then what is the problem with using those real specs as the definition?
My problem is a simple one. I'm not willing to approve of any law that has the intended purpose (or is so inherently vague and general it could be used for the purpose) of effecting a ban on all firearms that are commonly used in self defense.
If you have a definition of "assault weapons" that is specific enough to exclude firearms commonly used for self defense, then by all means, trot it out. I'm willing to listen.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Assault weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Assault weapon - Merriam-Webster Online

Perhaps we could have a discussion about what people mean by assault weapons/rifles and not a gun debate as was intended by the OP. Perhaps people could be serious and actually provide some insight. Hint: Big scary weapon is just political rhetoric, it's propaganda and helps nothing.

To Mudcat: The following link is very helpful in my opinion. I don't agree with it completely but I think it will give you some background as to what those on the pro-gun side think of "assault weapons" and "assault riffles".

The Truth About Assault Weapons

Can't get the link to work. It leads me to a screen that says "use arrow keys or touchscreen to navigate", but arrows keys don't work.

 

[RandFan]

My problem is a simple one. I'm not willing to approve of any law that has the intended purpose (or is so inherently vague and general it could be used for the purpose) of effecting a ban on all firearms that are commonly used in self defense.
If you have a definition of "assault weapons" that is specific enough to exclude firearms commonly used for self defense, then by all means, trot it out. I'm willing to listen.

This isn't about any law. It's about Mudcat wanting to understand what is meant by "assault weapons".

 

[RandFan]

Can't get the link to work. It leads me to a screen that says "use arrow keys or touchscreen to navigate", but arrows keys don't work.

Try another browser. It's working for me in firefox, Opera, Explorer and Chrome.

I think you would very much like that link.

 

[tyr_13]

Then what is the problem with using those real specs as the definition?
My problem is a simple one. I'm not willing to approve of any law that has the intended purpose (or is so inherently vague and general it could be used for the purpose) of effecting a ban on all firearms that are commonly used in self defense.
If you have a definition of "assault weapons" that is specific enough to exclude firearms commonly used for self defense, then by all means, trot it out. I'm willing to listen.

He doesn't. That's kind of been his point. He doesn't know what is an assault weapon and what is not, but does feel there are differences.

I don't know what those differences are besides semi-auto and cosmetic/convenience features.

'Assault weapon' means whatever the listener imagines and they're always right. That's exactly what the term is supposed be because it is a political scare tactic.

 

[RandFan]

He doesn't. That's kind of been his point. He doesn't know what is an assault weapon and what is not, but does feel there are differences.

I don't know what those differences are besides semi-auto and cosmetic/convenience features.

'Assault weapon' means whatever the listener imagines and they're always right. That's exactly what the term is supposed be because it is a political scare tactic.

Again, not helpful. Not helpful at all. Words do have meanings and it is possible to provide an answer that isn't political. And FTR: I think Mudcat is honest and sincere in his request. It's possible to give him a serious answer. The term "assault weapon" is in wide use even among gun enthusiasts. Pretending now that it's not isn't helpful.

I would understand your answer if the purpose of this thread were a political debate on gun control.

It's not.

 

[tyr_13]

Again, not helpful. Not helpful at all. Words do have meanings and it is possible to provide an answer that isn't political. And FTR: I think Mudcat is honest and sincere in his request. It's possible to give him a serious answer. The term "assault weapon" is in wide use even among gun enthusiasts. Pretending now that it's not isn't helpful.

I would understand your answer if the purpose of this thread were a political debate on gun control.

It's not.

But that is what the term means. If he wants to know what a purely political term means, the answer is going to be an explanation of it's political utility and use.

EDIT: It's a politically invented term for 'scary guns that you'd like to see banned', so of course the answer has to do with politics.

 

[RandFan]

But that is what the term means. If he wants to know what a purely political term means, the answer is going to be an explanation of it's political utility and use.

EDIT: It's a politically invented term for 'scary guns that you'd like to see banned', so of course the answer has to do with politics.

[citations are missing] If you are going to make that kind of claim you really need to back it up.

In any event, the term "Assault Riffle" etymology Sturmgewehr ("assault rifle", (literally) "storm rifle", is not political. Further, even if we assumed your premise was correct, it's not, it doesn't alter the fact that the term has taken on a meaning, a definition one can actually look up. Words are not laws of physics. They are simply a means to transfer information from one person to another.

There are long barraled riffles with long stocks that are bolt action that are not considered to be of the same "class" or "type" of weapon as an AK47, M-16, etc.. These class of weapons are capable of a much higher rate of fire and are more effective at wounding and killing lots of people who are in close proximity.

I think even you would agree that if a person's goal is to kill lots of people in a pubic setting that the person would have more success with an AR-15 than a bolt action 30.06, right? If so, then what's wrong with giving a designation to such weapons to distinguish them from single fire weapons that are heavier and more difficult to wield?

 

[Kestrel]

Pretending that assault weapons are actually hunting weapons is required in the gun industry. When outdoor writer Jim Zumbo^WP dared to speak out against this practice back in 2007, he got fired.

ETA: The popularity of these seemed to go way up after the AWB expired in 2004. Guys started thinking now that it's legal I gotta get me one of those guns. Then they had to figure out what they needed it for. It's not appropriate for big game hunting, and overkill for just about anything else. You don't need 30 rounds to hunt coyotes. Using it to vaporize prairie dogs or other small critters is a rather sick form of entertainment. What you really have is a device for blowing your ammunition budget as quickly as possible. Or killing a lot of people as quickly as possible.

 

[WildCat]

I can't sell my car without the proper paperwork.

That's because cars are heavily taxed in order to pay for roads and such which cars use. They need to know who to send the tax bill to, and also who to send the parking tickets to.

eta: and no, you're not responsible for what someone does in a car you have no control over.

 

[RandFan]

That's because cars are heavily taxed in order to pay for roads and such which cars use. They need to know who to send the tax bill to, and also who to send the parking tickets to.

Not the only reasons. But even if they were the only reasons it wouldn't change my point at all.

 

[GeeMack]

In any event, the term "Assault Riffle" etymology Sturmgewehr ("assault rifle", (literally) "storm rifle", is not political.

But the term "assault weapon" is political. And the meaning of that, after all, was the question posed in the OP. The definitive answer is not some arbitrary "higher rate of fire" or other subjective nonsense. "Assault weapon" is...

[...] a politically invented term for 'scary guns that you'd like to see banned', so of course the answer has to do with politics.

 

[tyr_13]

[citations are missing] If you are going to make that kind of claim you really need to back it up.

Your cites say as much.

In any event, the term "Assault Riffle" etymology Sturmgewehr ("assault rifle", (literally) "storm rifle", is not political.

Notice that it says assault rifle the key feature of which is automatic fire or an automatic fire option.

Further, even if we assumed your premise was correct, it's not, it doesn't alter the fact that the term has taken on a meaning, a definition one can actually look up. Words are not laws of physics. They are simply a means to transfer information from one person to another.

Semiautomatic and of military style. Style meaning looks. It looks like a scary weapon. That backs the political definition.

There are long barraled riffles with long stocks that are bolt action that are not considered to be of the same "class" or "type" of weapon as an AK47, M-16, etc.. These class of weapons are capable of a much higher rate of fire and are more effective at wounding and killing lots of people who are in close proximity.

Hence the terms 'automatic', 'bolt action', 'semi-automatic', and the like. There are actual non-political terms that can be used which are accurate and a discussion of those wouldn't include the political aspect.

I think even you would agree that if a person's goal is to kill lots of people in a pubic setting that the person would have more success with an AR-15 than a bolt action 30.06, right? If so, then what's wrong with giving a designation to such weapons to distinguish them from single fire weapons that are heavier and more difficult to wield?

What's wrong is that there are already perfectly good non-political terms that describe the things. And if that person is trained on the 30. 06 bolt rifle, I wouldn't be surprised to see that be the more effective weapon. You're falling into the exact mindset that the term was designed to politically exploit. You're saying the weapons are different, but you don't know exactly what those differences are, but those differences kill more people in public settings. But features aren't always there to make the gun directly more lethal but for convenience or to make the soldier better able to do his job, only part of which is killing. Lightness can be useful in fire fights, but it's really more for ease of carry for example. Telescoping stocks are handy for storage or for a weapon that can be used by many different people comfortably without changing the stock. Flash hinders hinder flash, which won't make a difference in public murder sprees. Pistol grips are preferred for some. This is simple a list of features that some people like to attach to the term 'assault weapon' but they don't create the term as many guns, like that Rugar everyone likes to post, can be either, neither, or both. EDIT: These features are also handy for people other than soldiers for reasons other than killing.

'Ranch rifle' is the same way, only to make them seem less weapon like and more tool like.

What you describe is non-semi-automatic verses semi-automatic fire. Everything else is perception. You might as well try to define 'hippie'. You know one when you see one.

EDIT: How about, 'A gun that feels like a military gun.'

EDIT 2: I suppose you could call them 'marketing terms'. In which case an 'assault weapon' is a weapon that feels like a military arm and a 'ranch rifle' is a weapon that feels like a farm tool. This is like 'ultra book' and 'Retina display'. It's so broad it means what the maker claims it means, or the speaker in the case of the hugely broad 'assault weapon'.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

[citations are missing] If you are going to make that kind of claim you really need to back it up.

In any event, the term "Assault Riffle" etymology Sturmgewehr ("assault rifle", (literally) "storm rifle", is not political. Further, even if we assumed your premise was correct, it's not, it doesn't alter the fact that the term has taken on a meaning, a definition one can actually look up. Words are not laws of physics. They are simply a means to transfer information from one person to another.

There are long barraled riffles with long stocks that are bolt action that are not considered to be of the same "class" or "type" of weapon as an AK47, M-16, etc.. These class of weapons are capable of a much higher rate of fire and are more effective at wounding and killing lots of people who are in close proximity.

I think even you would agree that if a person's goal is to kill lots of people in a pubic setting that the person would have more success with an AR-15 than a bolt action 30.06, right? If so, then what's wrong with giving a designation to such weapons to distinguish them from single fire weapons that are heavier and more difficult to wield?

What's wrong is that we already have a designation for such rifles: semi-automatic. Assault weapon has no meaning outside of a political context.
I went through your link, and agree with it. More importantly ( in terms of the OP), it agrees with me.
An "assault weapon" is a black, scary, bangy thing.
The link quotes the VPC:
H]andgun restriction is simply not viewed as a priority. Assault weapons ... are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.
And WaPo:
[N]o one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.
The whole purpose in using the term "assault weapons" is to deceive those members of the public who lack knowledge about firearms. This is a purely political maneuver; there is no true definition of an assault weapon save in the context of propagandizing the ignorant..

 

[Twiggett]

[citations are missing] If you are going to make that kind of claim you really need to back it up.

In any event, the term "Assault Riffle" etymology Sturmgewehr ("assault rifle", (literally) "storm rifle", is not political. Further, even if we assumed your premise was correct, it's not, it doesn't alter the fact that the term has taken on a meaning, a definition one can actually look up. Words are not laws of physics. They are simply a means to transfer information from one person to another.

There are long barraled riffles with long stocks that are bolt action that are not considered to be of the same "class" or "type" of weapon as an AK47, M-16, etc.. These class of weapons are capable of a much higher rate of fire and are more effective at wounding and killing lots of people who are in close proximity.

I think even you would agree that if a person's goal is to kill lots of people in a pubic setting that the person would have more success with an AR-15 than a bolt action 30.06, right? If so, then what's wrong with giving a designation to such weapons to distinguish them from single fire weapons that are heavier and more difficult to wield?

I know this question isn't directed to me but I would say if you are talking about a person with little or no firearms experience my answer would be that assuming they could overcome the added complexity (charging handle, mag release, etc) of an AR-style weapon then yes, they likely would have more success.

However, if the shooter is skilled in the use of firearms then I would say no, the type of firearm used would have little or no effect on how many they could kill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman

As to the OP's question, my definition of an assault weapon would be in keeping with the military's in that the first requirement is selective fire capability. Without that capability I would not define one as such, no matter how many military like features it has, leaving out grenade launchers which I think very few here would advocate for non-military use.

ETA: I said that about a skilled shooter in the sense of one that has prepared for and chosen a defensible position to conduct their rampage. Out in the open with no cover a bolt action rifle would almost certainly leave the shooter more vulnerable, though a handgun backup could offset that disadvantage.

 

[BStrong]

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".

Specifications for small arms in the post WWII era weren't formulated by interviewing EM's and NCO's and deciding what weapon type/cartridge would be the best tool fo them to survive on the battlefield, the specs were worked up by bean counters that had theories based on Battlefield Calculus - they believed that modern warfare would be carried out by super powers using jet aircraft, armor and atomic weapons - infantry and Marines were sideshows that would mop up after the main event, and counter insurgency wasn't even a rumor.

Assault rifles were cheaper to manufacture than past battle rifles - especially the Garand - and could take the place of the rifle, carbine and SMG, simplfying training and streamlining logistics. They also met the needs of the above mentioned bean counters.

The weapon will certainly kill, but that is a tactical, not a strategic consideration. Whether the 'net has it to find I don't know, but one of Hitler's supposed objections to the first AR, the StG 44, is that aside from complicating logistics, he prefered the 7.92 x 57 over the 7.92 x 33 because he felt that the 7.92 short round was underpowered.

As far as the 5.56 round used in the '16, here's a well researched article about both the problems with the design, but especially with the poor terminal performance of the cartridge - my first hand experience with the round, as well as the other common caliber 7.62 x 39 combloc, is that both will kill, but neither one is a certain stopper compared to the full powered cartridges that came before them.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/08/the_last_big_lie_of_vietnam_ki.html

 

[Bill Thompson]

"Assault weapons" are not inanimate objects. They do not assault anything. So really there are no such things as assault weapons.