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

[BStrong]

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.

Intermediate power cartridge, selective fire, it's an assault rifle.

Same rifle (they're out there) semi auto only, it's a semi auto carbine.

When a civiliam or LEO goes to school for training on such rifles, what course do they attend?

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_rn...598,d.cGE&fp=fb393f500af121e&biw=1366&bih=599

 

[Delvo]

I've demonstrated time and again that the terms have meaning to people and particularly gun enthusiasts.

You've shown that one of them (assault rifle) does. For the other (assault weapon), you've merely treated it as if it were the same phrase as "assault rifle" without showing any sign that it actually is or that it has any specific definition or use in gun-owning, gun-selling, or gun-using circles.

This isn't in anyway advancing the discussion... You aren't advancing the discussion here... We aren't getting anywhere here...

tl;dr

Look at that last line in context of the ones before it. Whining that somebody wrote too much and announcing that you're not even reading what somebody wrote doesn't do much for a discussion either.

 

[tyr_13]

I do understand that 'assault rifle' is used informally to group semi-auto versions of assault rifles with actual assault rifle and ones that look like them all together. This is done for various reasons such as ignorance, marketing, political motivations, and even just simplicities sake. In this way it's slightly contextual. Asking for the definition of it should yield the actual definition, and not the popular use however.

Skeptics should be immediately familiar with this idea through the use of the word 'theory'. Even though the common usage is the same as 'hypothesis' it's actually important to know that that is NOT the case.

The term 'assault weapon' is simply not even popularly used to mean the same a 'assault rifle'. It's used much more broadly with even more context sensitivity. It's also almost exclusively used by political discourses, especially by the media and activists who don't know the proper terms. They don't just mean 'assault rifles' and this is made manifest with the number of non-rifles it's used to describe. Yes, even the FN P90 which is a machine pistol or SMG in it's military and law enforcement model. There are even posters here who assert that basically all semi-auto weapons fall under the term.

Even if you want to say that 'assault rifles' are a subset of 'assault weapon', that acknowledges that they are not the same term.

 

[BStrong]

I do understand that 'assault rifle' is used informally to group semi-auto versions of assault rifles with actual assault rifle and ones that look like them all together. This is done for various reasons such as ignorance, marketing, political motivations, and even just simplicities sake. In this way it's slightly contextual. Asking for the definition of it should yield the actual definition, and not the popular use however.

Skeptics should be immediately familiar with this idea through the use of the word 'theory'. Even though the common usage is the same as 'hypothesis' it's actually important to know that that is NOT the case.

The term 'assault weapon' is simply not even popularly used to mean the same a 'assault rifle'. It's used much more broadly with even more context sensitivity. It's also almost exclusively used by political discourses, especially by the media and activists who don't know the proper terms. They don't just mean 'assault rifles' and this is made manifest with the number of non-rifles it's used to describe. Yes, even the FN P90 which is a machine pistol or SMG in it's military and law enforcement model. There are even posters here who assert that basically all semi-auto weapons fall under the term.

Even if you want to say that 'assault rifles' are a subset of 'assault weapon', that acknowledges that they are not the same term.

Actually, because of the caliber and envelope, the P90 falls into a new classification - the PDW - Personal Defense Weapon.

There are even 5.56 weapons designed for that intended use, but in going to the short 7" M/L barrel length, so much energy and velocity is lost that such designs are ballistically inefficient, but have the advantage of being logistically compatible with weapons already in issue.

 

[WildCat]

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.

But you're not made to register your car unless and until you drive it on a public road.

The old pickup truck that never leaves the farm or ranch doesn't need to be registered. Nor does the antique or collector car that never leaves the garage.

So by your own criteria a gun used for home defense needn't be registered. I'm just pointing out the flaw in your argument, cars and guns are very different in many ways and similar in few ways. My point still stands - cars are registered primarily because they use public roads and are taxed to help pay for those roads. Also they are often in violation of laws (such as parking in the wrong place or at the wrong time) when the owner or driver is not present and registration allows law enforcement to identify the person responsible for the fine.

Guns are seldom left laying around in a public place where they create an obstruction, and they aren't taxed to pay for gun infrastructure.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

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.

Using your own analogy, you would not have a problem with speed limit signs that, instead of stipulating a precise MPH ceiling, just stated "Speed Limit-Not Very Fast", and left it to the discretion of the local police as to what was "very Fast"?
I can see where that might be good for increasing local revenue, but I'm pretty sure there are a lot of people who might want a speed limit with a little more specificity.

 

[RandFan]

But you're not made to register your car unless and until you drive it on a public road.

The old pickup truck that never leaves the farm or ranch doesn't need to be registered. Nor does the antique or collector car that never leaves the garage.

So by your own criteria a gun used for home defense needn't be registered. I'm just pointing out the flaw in your argument, cars and guns are very different in many ways and similar in few ways. My point still stands - cars are registered primarily because they use public roads and are taxed to help pay for those roads. Also they are often in violation of laws (such as parking in the wrong place or at the wrong time) when the owner or driver is not present and registration allows law enforcement to identify the person responsible for the fine.

Guns are seldom left laying around in a public place where they create an obstruction, and they aren't taxed to pay for gun infrastructure.

I'm sorry but this simply does nothing to address my point. Guns are often stolen or sold to people who use them in a crime. If I can be asked to report when my car is sold in order to avoid liability then I can be asked to report when I sold my gun. Pretty simple stuff. If I sell my car without notifying the DMV and someone is injured or killed I can be liable. The same should be true for guns. Again, a simple concept and your rambling about taxes and public places and yada yada isn't helping anyone.

 

[RandFan]

You've shown that one of them (assault rifle) does. For the other (assault weapon), you've merely treated it as if it were the same phrase as "assault rifle" without showing any sign that it actually is or that it has any specific definition or use in gun-owning, gun-selling, or gun-using circles.

I'm going to let you in on a little secret, riffles are in fact weapons. I don't know what other weapons are considered "assault weapons". I don't need to. I just need to know that if "assault riffles" exist then by extension so do assault weapons.

Look at that last line in context of the ones before it. Whining that somebody wrote too much and announcing that you're not even reading what somebody wrote doesn't do much for a discussion either.

The point in question had been resolved.

 

[tyr_13]

I'm going to let you in on a little secret, riffles are in fact weapons. I don't know what other weapons are considered "assault weapons". I don't need to. I just need to know that if "assault riffles" exist then by extension so do assault weapons.

The point in question had been resolved.

When you linked to the wikipedia article earlier, did you not read it or do you simply disagree with it?

 

[RandFan]

When you linked to the wikipedia article earlier, did you not read it or do you simply disagree with it?

Are we playing gotcha? What's your point?

ETA: I despise the gotcha BS. I come here in good faith. I'm human and make mistakes and I apologize frequently. I don't claim to be perfect. If your purpose is to catch me in a contradiction for rhetorical advantage then you can save yourself some time. If you have a good faith question then I'm happy to answer it.

 

[tyr_13]

Are we playing gotcha? What's your point?

You've maintained several points, the most notable supporting that the term 'assault rifle' means gun enthusiast accept and embrace 'assault weapon', that differ substantially from the wiki article. As you differed from an assertion in the slide show you linked to and further accuse me of putting words in your mouth without specifying which they were, I don't want to again quote your source just to be told I'm putting words in your mouth.

So I'm trying to make sure I understand your use of the links.

 

[GeeMack]

I'm going to let you in on a little secret, riffles are in fact weapons. I don't know what other weapons are considered "assault weapons". I don't need to. I just need to know that if "assault riffles" exist then by extension so do assault weapons.

The point in question had been resolved.

No. The OP asked what exactly makes an assault weapon an assault weapon. Redefining the term "assault weapon" to fit within the definition of "assault rifle" does not answer the question, nor can it in any way be considered an honest resolution.

 

[RandFan]

You've maintained several points, the most notable supporting that the term 'assault rifle' means gun enthusiast accept and embrace 'assault weapon', that differ substantially from the wiki article. As you differed from an assertion in the slide show you linked to and further accuse me of putting words in your mouth without specifying which they were, I don't want to again quote your source just to be told I'm putting words in your mouth.

So I'm trying to make sure I understand your use of the links.

Let's be very clear here. I have said from the get go that a precise definition is impossible. In fact I have said over and over that the fact that the definition is problematic is a good reason why such a definition cannot pass legal muster. I have routinely used the terminology "so called 'assault riffle'" with the square quotes. I did that to make clear that I thought the terminology problematic from a public policy stand point. You and I will have no problem on that front.

So, let's refocus on my position and not some bastardized version of it. There is a term, "assault riffle" that is routinely used by gun enthusiasts and gun merchants. A.) When these gun enthuists use the term they are not being political. B.) The enthusiasts have a pretty good idea of the class of weapon they are talking about. C.) The merchants who use the term "assault riffle" to sell to gun enthusiasts likewise understand the term and use it because they know it will convey the correct meaning. Now, when advertisers targeting their demographics use the term "assault riffle" they don't really mean "big scary gun". When the buyers google assault weapon in search of a weapon to purchase they aren't thinking "big scarry gun". D.) The term has been in existence for a long time and has entered the lexicon. The proof that it has entered the lexicon is that it can be found in dictionaries and encyclopedias.

So those are my premises. Are the sources all in agreement? I don't care as that has nothing to do with my point.

My Point: The term Assault Riffle has entered the lexicon. In other words, it's a real term used not simply by politicians and anti-gun zealots but people who sell, own and use guns. My sources might not all match but not one of them uses the term "big scary gun" as a definition.

Mudcat wanted to know what was meant by "assault weapon". I gave him some background to help him understand. I included the slideshow because I thought he had a right to understand the controversy and what various groups thought of the term.

 

[tyr_13]

I'm talking about your link to wikipedia regarding 'assault weapons' which has an entire section about the confusion of it with 'assault rifle'. I understand that you think the term 'assault rifle' and it's bastardization means that people, gun enthusiasts accept the term 'assault weapon'. That's what people are objecting to. They aren't the same term, they aren't used the same way.

So I take it you disagree with the wiki article in that section.

Buyers don't google 'assault weapon' when they are shopping if they know what they are doing, they google 'assault rifles' or even better the actual type of gun they are looking for. Googling 'assault weapon' yields almost exclusively political articles (and two dictionary links) for exactly the reason one might suspect. The term is in the lexicon as a political category for various advocacy groups and laws which also don't agree with what is and isn't one.

 

[BStrong]

I'm talking about your link to wikipedia regarding 'assault weapons' which has an entire section about the confusion of it with 'assault rifle'. I understand that you think the term 'assault rifle' and it's bastardization means that people, gun enthusiasts accept the term 'assault weapon'. That's what people are objecting to. They aren't the same term, they aren't used the same way.

So I take it you disagree with the wiki article in that section.

Buyers don't google 'assault weapon' when they are shopping if they know what they are doing, they google 'assault rifles' or even better the actual type of gun they are looking for. Googling 'assault weapon' yields almost exclusively political articles (and two dictionary links) for exactly the reason one might suspect. The term is in the lexicon as a political category for various advocacy groups and laws which also don't agree with what is and isn't one.

In my circles we refer to them as EBR's Evil Black Rifles

Tickled the hell out of me when Sage marketed their improved version of the Crane M1A/M14 chassis stock under the name EBR, Enhanced Battle Rifle, as installation on an otherwise factory stock M1A turns it into an Assault Weapon under California law. Can't have the peasents running around loose with rifles w/ pistol grips.

 

[RandFan]

I'm talking about your link to wikipedia regarding 'assault weapons' which has an entire section about the confusion of it with 'assault rifle'. I understand that you think the term 'assault rifle' and it's bastardization means that people, gun enthusiasts accept the term 'assault weapon'. That's what people are objecting to. They aren't the same term, they aren't used the same way.

So I take it you disagree with the wiki article in that section.

Buyers don't google 'assault weapon' when they are shopping if they know what they are doing, they google 'assault rifles' or even better the actual type of gun they are looking for. Googling 'assault weapon' yields almost exclusively political articles (and two dictionary links) for exactly the reason one might suspect. The term is in the lexicon as a political category for various advocacy groups and laws which also don't agree with what is and isn't one.

I didn't say buyers google "assault weapon". That has absolutely nothing at all to do with my point. I've already said I don't care if there is a discrepancy between sources so I've no idea why you think it fruitful to ask me yet again about a discrepancy between sources. It's not my job to vouch for wiki or anyone else. It's my job to demonstrate that the terms have entered the lexicon. I've done that. I've more than done that.

I don't care that wiki says something that you think is some kind of "gotcha" against me. Sorry, it's meaningless as to my point. Which I keep stressing and you keep ignoring choosing to focus on an aspect that is entirely meaningless.

A riffle is weapon. An assault rifle is an assault weapon. If there are people using either terms for political purposes and/or in different ways it does not at all change the fact that they are very real terms and your insistence that they are only used in a political way is demonstrably untrue as I have shown time and again. Merchants and sellers both understand what is meant.

If I tell a friend who is a gun enthusiast that there are various Youtube videos and articles entitled the Top 10 assault riffles he (and you) will have no problem imagining what the hell I'm talking about. You know that for a fact.

Top 10 Assault Rifles - YouTube

Top 10 Assault Rifles 2013

So, if the most people who know anything about guns can easily communicate by using the term assault rifles then why would you assert to mudcat that the term has no real meaning or it is only political? Isn't that misleading?

 

[WildCat]

I'm sorry but this simply does nothing to address my point. Guns are often stolen or sold to people who use them in a crime. If I can be asked to report when my car is sold in order to avoid liability then I can be asked to report when I sold my gun. Pretty simple stuff. If I sell my car without notifying the DMV and someone is injured or killed I can be liable. The same should be true for guns. Again, a simple concept and your rambling about taxes and public places and yada yada isn't helping anyone.

1. Registration doesn't prevent guns from being stolen.
2. Registration doesn't prevent anyone from using said gun in a crime, nor identify the criminal. If the gun is left at the crime scene (which is extremely unlikely if the criminal actually registered it in his or her name)the prosecution would still have to prove the owner of the gun committed the crime.
3. If you sell your unregistered car it's up to the buyer to register it if they plan to use it on public roads.
4. You can only be held liable for damage done by someone driving your car if they were using it with your permission in the manner you gave permission for.
5. Ignoring the reasons I gave for registering cars doesn't make the issue go away, and the reasons cars are registered aren't even applicable to registering guns.

 

[RandFan]

1. Registration doesn't prevent guns from being stolen.
2. Registration doesn't prevent anyone from using said gun in a crime, nor identify the criminal. If the gun is left at the crime scene (which is extremely unlikely if the criminal actually registered it in his or her name)the prosecution would still have to prove the owner of the gun committed the crime.
3. If you sell your unregistered car it's up to the buyer to register it if they plan to use it on public roads.
4. You can only be held liable for damage done by someone driving your car if they were using it with your permission in the manner you gave permission for.
5. Ignoring the reasons I gave for registering cars doesn't make the issue go away, and the reasons cars are registered aren't even applicable to registering guns.

• No one said otherwise. Entirely irrelevant to my point.
• No one said otherwise. Entirely irrelevant to my point.
• If you don't want to be liable for damage then you will notify the DMV.
• Wrong. How many times must I provide a citation before you will actually look at the citation?
• There is no issue to "go away". I had a point. The point remains.

If I can be expected to register my car when I purchase it and notify the DMV when I sell it then private citizens can perform a brackground check when they sell their car. No BFD.

One more, if I can have my contracts notarized then I can just as easily go to the effort of performing a background check to sell a gun.

Do you have ANYTHING to address my point? I'm not going to keep responding to irrelevancies.

 

[tyr_13]

I didn't say buyers google "assault weapon". That has absolutely nothing at all to do with my point.

When the buyers google assault weapon in search of a weapon to purchase they aren't thinking "big scarry gun".

Ummm, you did. But it does have to do with your point. 'Assault rifle' and 'assault weapon' aren't the same thing even if you contend that the rifle is part of the group of weapons called 'assault weapons'. You can't just say that 'assault rifle' is x, therefore 'assault weapon' is x.

I've already said I don't care if there is a discrepancy between sources so I've no idea why you think it fruitful to ask me yet again about a discrepancy between sources. It's not my job to vouch for wiki or anyone else. It's my job to demonstrate that the terms have entered the lexicon. I've done that. I've more than done that.

There isn't much discrepancy between your sources. The discrepancy is between your sources and what you have concluded, and even your sources and your premise.

I don't care that wiki says something that you think is some kind of "gotcha" against me. Sorry, it's meaningless as to my point. Which I keep stressing and you keep ignoring choosing to focus on an aspect that is entirely meaningless.

This isn't a gotcha game. This isn't about weapon bans. You're insisting on conflating a term that is used for describing weapons for description sake and one that is almost entirely political. A term which is considered by many gun enthusiast a pejorative. Terms which aren't used the same way.

'Black' and 'the n word' don't mean the same thing either.

A riffle is weapon. An assault rifle is an assault weapon. If there are people using either terms for political purposes and/or in different ways it does not at all change the fact that they are very real terms and your insistence that they are only used in a political way is demonstrably untrue as I have shown time and again. Merchants and sellers both understand what is meant.

Merchants and sellers don't use one of those terms except in relation to laws that do. The logic simply doesn't follow here. 'Assault rifle is a term, therefore, assault weapon.' The Hummer is a military vehicle, therefore, the Hummer 2 is. It's even referred to by a lot of the population even though one is made by AM General and the other is a rebodied passenger truck.

It isn't that they aren't 'real terms' it's that they simply aren't used the way you assert.

If I tell a friend who is a gun enthusiast that there are various Youtube videos and articles entitled the Top 10 assault riffles he (and you) will have no problem imagining what the hell I'm talking about. You know that for a fact.

Top 10 Assault Rifles - YouTube

Top 10 Assault Rifles 2013

So, if the most people who know anything about guns can easily communicate by using the term assault rifles then why would you assert to mudcat that the term has no real meaning or it is only political? Isn't that misleading?

Because, as I've said repeatedly, they aren't interchangeable. You continue to substitute 'assault rifle' with 'assault weapon' as if one proves the other and they are the same thing. That's the entire problem. It isn't that neither or either mean nothing, it's that they don't mean the same thing.

 

[RandFan]

Because, as I've said repeatedly, they aren't interchangeable. You continue to substitute 'assault rifle' with 'assault weapon' as if one proves the other and they are the same thing. That's the entire problem. It isn't that neither or either mean nothing, it's that they don't mean the same thing.

Not all assault weapons are assault riffles but all assault riffles are by definition assault weapons. I'm sorry you don't like that. I'm sorry that you have pinned so much hope on a "gotcha". The terms are in the lexicon and all of your assertions won't change that. Sure, you can find discrepancy and controversy but I've never denied that. If you think the discrepancy and controversy demonstrate that you are correct then you are sadly mistaken.

Let me point out one more time that I don't have any confirmation bias. I love guns and if what you are saying had any validity I would happily agree with you. I don't want to ban any guns and I most certainly think the nature of the law makes it all but impossible for there to be an effective legal definition for either assault riffle or assault weapon.