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

[RandFan]

Your cites say as much.

You could have provided a pull quote. I don't see that it does.

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

Yes, and?

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

No. Style meaning style, i.e. features that make it more of an effective killing weapon than other weapons without those features. Let's be honest, the features are there for a reason. They work.

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.

But there are many features. You really expect me to site every feature to explain the type of weapon I'm talking about? That's silly.

What's wrong is that there are already perfectly good non-political terms that describe the things.

No there isn't which is why the term "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" are in heavy use even among gun enthusiasts. When I say "assault weapon" you have an image in your head. By using the term I can effectively convey an idea that you know what I'm talking about. A weapon that has a number of features that make it easy to handle and effective and efficient at killing and wounding lots of people.

You might not like the term but it is being used by gun enthusiasts right now. Even if you had a good argument why not to use the term (and you don't) it would not matter. The toothpaste is out of the tube.

Modern Firearms - Assault Rifles

Heckler & Koch :: Assault Rifles

Military Assault Rifles in stock

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.

Which is why military forces around the world are switching from assault riffles to bolt action rifles, right?

You're falling into the exact mindset that the term was designed to politically exploit.

Again, you've utterly failed to provide any proof that the origination of the term was purely political. Further it wouldn't matter. Gun enthusiasts use the term billions of times a day. It's in the lexicon. It doesn't matter if you don't like it.

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.

That's where you are wrong. I've been reading since this started and I know that there were many reasons for military forces around the world to move to weapons like the AK-47 and M-16. But the ability to kill and wound lots of people was in fact a very important consideration. Select fire isn't there to help the soldier maneuver and your suggestion that these sought after features were only for convenience sake is rather disappointing to say the least. I realize that you are invested in this but come on. I'm not anti-gun. There is no need for you to be obtuse with me.

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.

I've conceded these points on more than one occasion. What you haven't conceded is that military forces around the world have sought ever more lethal and harm inducing weapons. Sure many of these features are for things other than lethality and the ability to so seriousy harm. But many are for the purpose of effective and efficient 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.'

[/QUOTE]The day you get the world to stop using the term "assault riffle" you let me know. Until then it is an effective and very used term even among gun enthusiasts.

 

[BStrong]

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.

For clarification, outside of a true destructive device like an M203 launcher or similar, when someone in the media or politics talks about a "Grenade Launcher" wrt a semi auto rifle, the "Grenade Launcher" in question is a standard muzzle device with an outside diameter of 22mm that would accept an old tech (WWI- WWII) rifle grenade that could be launched with a blank cartridge.

As a practical issue, it's grist for the mill and nothing else.

 

[GeeMack]

[...]

The day you get the world to stop using the term "assault riffle" you let me know. Until then it is an effective and very used term even among gun enthusiasts.

Yet after all those words, there is still a notable lack of objective description of an "assault weapon".

 

[WildCat]

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

It is pretty much the only reason. Cars are left out on the public street, where they get ticketed and towed and taxed. The government has to know who owns them.

You don't have to to register a vehicle that never leaves your property, say if you have a ranch truck or something. But that might vary from state to state.

 

[RandFan]

It is pretty much the only reason. Cars are left out on the public street, where they get ticketed and towed and taxed. The government has to know who owns them.

You don't have to to register a vehicle that never leaves your property, say if you have a ranch truck or something. But that might vary from state to state.

There are "5.25 million auto accidents per year (the number includes everything from a minor fender bender to a head on)". Automobiles cause a lot of property damage every year, not to mention harm. A vehicle that never leaves the owner's property isn't likely to harm another persons property and is not likely to kill or harm someone on the open road. In many if not most states, if you don't get a Notice of Release of Liability when you sell your car then you are on the hook for any liability.

And my point would stand regardless.

 

[Twiggett]

For clarification, outside of a true destructive device like an M203 launcher or similar, when someone in the media or politics talks about a "Grenade Launcher" wrt a semi auto rifle, the "Grenade Launcher" in question is a standard muzzle device with an outside diameter of 22mm that would accept an old tech (WWI- WWII) rifle grenade that could be launched with a blank cartridge.

As a practical issue, it's grist for the mill and nothing else.

Absolutely. I had the real M203 in mind when I referred to them, not one of the non-destructive versions that are a bit of a waste of money better spent on functional upgrades in my opinion.

 

[WildCat]

There are "5.25 million auto accidents per year (the number includes everything from a minor fender bender to a head on)". Automobiles cause a lot of property damage every year, not to mention harm. A vehicle that never leaves the owner's property isn't likely to harm another persons property and is not likely to kill or harm someone on the open road. In many if not most states, if you don't get a Notice of Release of Liability when you sell your car then you are on the hook for any liability.

And my point would stand regardless.

So your point is you shouldn't have to register your gun so long as you don't use it in public?

 

[BStrong]

Absolutely. I had the real M203 in mind when I referred to them, not one of the non-destructive versions that are a bit of a waste of money better spent on functional upgrades in my opinion.

Most modern flash hiders and muzzle brakes come standard with a 22mm O.D., M14's and the original FAL standard long FH's excepted.

Trying to explain that to some gun control advocates brings on vapor lock of the brain though.

 

[tyr_13]

You could have provided a pull quote. I don't see that it does.

I'm not counting pages on a slide show that you cited to prove to you that your own site claims it to be of political origins.

Yes, and?

Assault rifle has already been explained to you and requires specific features absent from weapons people refer to as 'assault weapons'. The term 'assault weapon' is so inconsistently applied that it's the main criticism of the term itself, which is not so with 'assault rifle' which just gets misused.

No. Style meaning style, i.e. features that make it more of an effective killing weapon than other weapons without those features. Let's be honest, the features are there for a reason. They work.

I've explained already some of them and what they 'work' to do. You assumed it was 'killing' but you're wrong. You've been corrected repeatedly on that.

But there are many features. You really expect me to site every feature to explain the type of weapon I'm talking about? That's silly.

Guns do have names you know.

No there isn't which is why the term "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" are in heavy use even among gun enthusiasts. When I say "assault weapon" you have an image in your head. By using the term I can effectively convey an idea that you know what I'm talking about. A weapon that has a number of features that make it easy to handle and effective and efficient at killing and wounding lots of people.

The terms aren't interchangeable. You keep asserting the function of those features, but you're simply mistaken on a lot of them. Many of them only make them more effective at killing in a round about way, such as being easier to customize to several people or cheaper to produce letting the organization spend more on bombs or whatnot, or being easier to carry which doesn't come into play on public shooting sprees very often.

Some of them aren't even more effective but simply preference.

Again, guns have names. Name the gun. The category only exists as a political descriptor. In no other context is it as useful as the name of the gun or the proper term for the gun.

When you say 'assault weapon' I guess you assume I think of an AR or AK platform, but I tend to think of the M-14, which you might not think of as an assault weapon. Why? Wood furniture. Also not normally with a pistol grip.

You might not like the term but it is being used by gun enthusiasts right now. Even if you had a good argument why not to use the term (and you don't) it would not matter. The toothpaste is out of the tube.

Modern Firearms - Assault Rifles

Heckler & Koch :: Assault Rifles

Military Assault Rifles in stock

Those don't support your assertion. You're simply confusing terms. You're using terms that people who don't know what they're talking about like to use that make people who do know what they're talking about get stabby.

Which is why military forces around the world are switching from assault riffles to bolt action rifles, right?

Bolt action rifles are still issued by the US military. While .30 06 isn't standard, .308 is, better known as 7.62x51mm NATO. (Yes, I know the technical difference, I'm just not going into that level of detail.)

Don't let the advances in technology make you forget how effective other tech is. Just because design has gone one way for a number of reasons doesn't mean other avenues are perfectly viable.

Again, you've utterly failed to provide any proof that the origination of the term was purely political. Further it wouldn't matter. Gun enthusiasts use the term billions of times a day. It's in the lexicon. It doesn't matter if you don't like it.

No they don't, you're simply conflating terms.

That's where you are wrong. I've been reading since this started and I know that there were many reasons for military forces around the world to move to weapons like the AK-47 and M-16. But the ability to kill and wound lots of people was in fact a very important consideration. Select fire isn't there to help the soldier maneuver and your suggestion that these sought after features were only for convenience sake is rather disappointing to say the least. I realize that you are invested in this but come on. I'm not anti-gun. There is no need for you to be obtuse with me.

Select fire isn't even an option on most guns people call 'assault weapons'. I'm not being obtuse, you're simply not grasping the distinctions here for some reason.

And yes, they chose them to meet their needs in war. That doesn't mean the basic layouts are only good for that, or that they aren't suitable to other uses and in fact optimal for many.

I know you're not anti-gun. I'm trying to get you unconfused from anti-gun pop misinformation.

I've conceded these points on more than one occasion. What you haven't conceded is that military forces around the world have sought ever more lethal and harm inducing weapons. Sure many of these features are for things other than lethality and the ability to so seriousy harm. But many are for the purpose of effective and efficient killing.

I don't know what point you're trying to make here. It doesn't make the term 'assault weapon' any more pointlessly broad and nebulous. 'Military style' is also great for ease of use, clean, robustness, things that are great all around. That does in the long run make them more effective at killing. They are guns. It isn't like the lever action I have locked to a wall isn't effective too. The elements that make the modern military more dangerous don't always, or even often, come into play in mass shootings. That's why the most effective school shooter was done with ten round mags from a round most military experts laugh at.

For mass murder, a shotgun and a couple of handguns is optimal, depending on the plan.

Oh, shotguns are still issued to military too.

The day you get the world to stop using the term "assault riffle" you let me know. Until then it is an effective and very used term even among gun enthusiasts.

They simply aren't the same term. They don't mean the same thing and they aren't used the same way.

 

[RandFan]

I'm not counting pages on a slide show that you cited to prove to you that your own site claims it to be of political origins.

The idea that the term was purely political was nonsense anyway. I'm happy to ignore it. Burden of proof and all. It doesn't matter if it's my site. If it's your claim you prove it.

Assault rifle has already been explained to you and requires specific features absent from weapons people refer to as 'assault weapons'. The term 'assault weapon' is so inconsistently applied that it's the main criticism of the term itself, which is not so with 'assault rifle' which just gets misused.

An assertion. I don't accept it. This isn't in anyway advancing the discussion.

I've explained already some of them and what they 'work' to do. You assumed it was 'killing' but you're wrong. You've been corrected repeatedly on that.

And I've already explained why you are both right and wrong. I get it I really do. You aren't advancing the discussion here.

Guns do have names you know.

And they fall in different classes you know.

The terms aren't interchangeable. You keep asserting the function of those features, but you're simply mistaken on a lot of them. Many of them only make them more effective at killing in a round about way, such as being easier to customize to several people or cheaper to produce letting the organization spend more on bombs or whatnot, or being easier to carry which doesn't come into play on public shooting sprees very often.

More assertions. We aren't getting anywhere here.

Again, guns have names. Name the gun. The category only exists as a political descriptor. In no other context is it as useful as the name of the gun or the proper term for the gun.

I've demonstrated how and why that this is wrong.

tl;dr

I've demonstrated time and again that the terms have meaning to people and particularly gun enthusiasts. It doesn't matter if you don't like the terms. It doesn't matter if you argue ad nauseam that the terms are political. They aren't but believe whatever you want to believe. You are wasting your time. The terms aren't going away because you don't like them.

Welcome to history.

 

[RandFan]

So your point is you shouldn't have to register your gun so long as you don't use it in public?

No. My point was that if I could be made to register my car and report it to the DMV when I sold it without much harangue then we could hammer out a solution for guns. That's all.

 

[tyr_13]

Randfan, you're using circular logic. You say you don't accept the distinction between assault weapon and assault rifle, despite assault rifle requiring select fire or automatic only, because gun enthusiast use the term assault rifle. But you support assault rifle and assault weapon being the same by gun enthusiast (marketing departments actually) using the term 'assault rifle'.

It appears that your definition of assault weapon is 'assault rifle'. That's not how the term is popularly used. Popular usage is any 'military feeling/looking' gun. It's a nebulus term in common usage, so your assertion that it's the same as 'assault rifle' (which also gets misused commonly) doesn't make it so.

Is the H2 Hummer a military vehicle? Is the Pontiac Vibe an SUV? People say it...so it is?

 

[RandFan]

Randfan, you're using circular logic. You say you don't accept the distinction between assault weapon and assault rifle, despite assault rifle requiring select fire or automatic only, because gun enthusiast use the term assault rifle. But you support assault rifle and assault weapon being the same by gun enthusiast (marketing departments actually) using the term 'assault rifle'.

It appears that your definition of assault weapon is 'assault rifle'. That's not how the term is popularly used. Popular usage is any 'military feeling/looking' gun. It's a nebulus term in common usage, so your assertion that it's the same as 'assault rifle' (which also gets misused commonly) doesn't make it so.

You are putting words in my mouth and giving me positions I do not hold. I find that dishonest and disappointing at best.

There is no circular logic. Just terms that have been in the lexicon for some time now. You want to deny that they exist or you deny that they are anything but political. I have shown that the terms are used routinely. And if it is for marketing purposes doesn't that mean that their demographic, gun enthusiasts, understand what the term means? Why on earth would a dealer use a term not accepted or even understood by gun enthusiasts?

I'm sorry but this isn't a subject for debate. It really isn't. The terms are real and being used now. You don't need to like it but you aren't going to stop it. You are demonstrating just how argumentative gun proponents can be even in the face of obvious facts. Hell, I post link after link to sites that are not political that offer assault riffles.

www.assaultriflesforsale.com/

assaultriflesforsale.net/

AR 15 Assault Rifles For Sale

So, you can claim until the end of time that there is no such thing as an assault riffle but I have thousands of links that will sell me one. If I call a local dealer what are the chances he won't have any idea what I'm talking about?

Oh, and BTW, a riffle is a weapon. An assault riffle would be an assault weapon.

 

[tyr_13]

So the Vibe is an SUV and the H2 is a military vehicle.

The terms being used, wrongly, doesn't make them acceptable.

The terms being used doesn't make them non-nebulus or non-political. Yes, marketing terms marketed to enthusiast who either don't know any better or don't care, like in every industry. That doesn't mean I can't criticize the misuse, just like with the term 'organic' and 'natural'.

Obvious facts? Yes, people routinely don't know what they're talking about.

EDIT: What words did I put in your mouth?

EDIT 2: And the entire point of the thread is that the meaning of the term is up for debate!

EDIT 3: It's really an example of how persnickety people get when other people use the wrong terms for their hobby. The entire clip/magazine thing gets the same discussion. You don't need a Jedi mind meld to know how fans bicker.

 

[RandFan]

The terms being used, wrongly, doesn't make them acceptable.

You are not the word master. Words are not unchanging laws of physics. Once a term has entered the lexicon it becomes the correct usage. Your approval is unnecessary to the process. IOW: It's happening whether you like it or not.

The terms being used doesn't make them non-nebulus or non-political. Yes, marketing terms marketed to enthusiast who either don't know any better or don't care, like in every industry. That doesn't mean I can't criticize the misuse, just like with the term 'organic' and 'natural'.

Some times when everyone in the band is out of step but you, it's time to consider that perhaps you are in fact the one out of step. Look, at the end of the day the people selling the guns understand the usage. The people purchasing the guns understand the usage. By looking for so called "assault riffles" they can skip past the long barrel, long stock bolt action riffles. The merchant will have a good idea what I want if I ask for an assault riffle. If he is a good merchant he might ask me some additional questions and determine what I really need is a personal defense weapon like the FNP90 assuming I could get it in a semiautomatic version.

Oh wait, PDW (personal defense weapon) like the FNP90 is probably another one of those political non-words that I can use with my gun dealer to describe a type of gun.

EDIT: What words did I put in your mouth?

Go back and read what you wrote. Nothing you attribute to me is accurate as far as I can tell.

EDIT 2: And the entire point of the thread is that the meaning of the term is up for debate!

No, the entire point of the thread is for people who know what they are talking about to inform to Mudcat what people mean when they say "assault rifle"?

I would recommend that he peruse the listings of assault rifles in the links I provided. That would be a good starting point. At least he would know what the gun retailers think.

 

[tyr_13]

And when people come in asking for a Samsung iPhone, I know what they're talking about but that doesn't make it right.

And again, you've shown that people mean something when they say 'assault riffle' and then skip to that meaning what 'assault weapon' is. You support this with how people use 'assault rifle'. You support this with how people use 'assault rifle'.

 

[Mudcat]

No, the entire point of the thread is for people who know what they are talking about to inform to Mudcat what people mean when they say "assault rifle"?

I had no idea that the whole thread was about me, sorry. It's that there have been many threads debating gun bans and there seems to be a lot of people whom don't know what Assault Weapons are exactly. It made me wonder if there were any guidelines about what qualifies Assault Weapons as such, and what they were.

For all I knew, it was nothing more than a political term designed to cloud the issue.

Whatever the case is, I think it was a good idea to find out for future references. Not just for me, but for the other gun illiterate posters out there like me.

 

[a_unique_person]

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.

There is a spectrum of guns out there. You ultimately have to make an arbitrary decision on the definition. Why is 60KmH the speed limit in some urban areas, 50 in others, and 40 in others again. Why not 61Kmh? Would it make that much difference, why not 59. Saying you want a precise definition is a game.

 

[Noztradamus]

~~~
Oh, and BTW, a riffle is a weapon. An assault riffle would be an assault weapon.

No. A riffle is a shallow sluice designed to collect metalliferous sediments from flowing water.
There are no assault riffles.

 

[a_unique_person]

I had no idea that the whole thread was about me, sorry. It's that there have been many threads debating gun bans and there seems to be a lot of people whom don't know what Assault Weapons are exactly. It made me wonder if there were any guidelines about what qualifies Assault Weapons as such, and what they were.

For all I knew, it was nothing more than a political term designed to cloud the issue.

Whatever the case is, I think it was a good idea to find out for future references. Not just for me, but for the other gun illiterate posters out there like me.

The German STG44 was the first Assault Rifle. It's not too complicated, but you can make it as complicated as you want, just to confuse everyone.